Question about pastoral and exegetical value of top commentaries

Page 2 of 2 (27 items) < Previous 1 2
This post has 26 Replies | 1 Follower

Posts 13358
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 10 2018 9:03 AM

David Staveley:
Couldn’t agree more. So, your point is what precisely?

There's an inherent paradox in your position, which is arguing (1) that the methodology of the NT writers' was the same as their fellow Jews, but (2) the results of that exegesis was radically different.

In your initial reply, you emphasised the first point. I felt that was at the expense of the second — hence my response, which was intended to add balance. And crucially, I wanted to argue that it does not follow that just because God has included "hidden meanings" in the Scriptures that were only revealed in Jesus Christ, then the original context is "irrelevant". The original context can (and does) remain relevant despite of (and partly because of) the deeper Christological meaning.

There's a whole bunch of other stuff that I'd want to add if this was the place for it, but in brief:

  • We can't about the intent of the original author without talking about dual-authorship and the divine intent.
  • We can't assume that all first-century Jews shared the same exegetical methods, and that the NT writers used all of them.

I also prefer the term "charismatic exegesis" over pesher (see Aune), which nicely draws attention to the Spirit's role in guiding the church in this interpretation.

Posts 89
David Staveley | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 10 2018 10:10 AM

Mark Barnes:

David Staveley:
Couldn’t agree more. So, your point is what precisely?

There's an inherent paradox in your position, which is arguing (1) that the methodology of the NT writers' was the same as their fellow Jews, but (2) the results of that exegesis was radically different.

In your initial reply, you emphasised the first point. I felt that was at the expense of the second — hence my response, which was intended to add balance. And crucially, I wanted to argue that it does not follow that just because God has included "hidden meanings" in the Scriptures that were only revealed in Jesus Christ, then the original context is "irrelevant". The original context can (and does) remain relevant despite of (and partly because of) the deeper Christological meaning.

There's a whole bunch of other stuff that I'd want to add if this was the place for it, but in brief:

  • We can't about the intent of the original author without talking about dual-authorship and the divine intent.
  • We can't assume that all first-century Jews shared the same exegetical methods, and that the NT writers used all of them.

I also prefer the term "charismatic exegesis" over pesher (see Aune), which nicely draws attention to the Spirit's role in guiding the church in this interpretation.

Yeah, I see what you are saying now. And in fact, you highlighted a weakness in my initial statement. So, thank you for that. 

It would have been nice for us to discuss this issue more at length. It's such a fascinating area of research. However, as we both know, the rules are against us!

As for Aune's phrase (who I have read extensively) "charismatic exegesis", I have always found it ugly for some reason. I do agree however, that when we are describing Christian pesher, we need a better phrase. It's just a question of which one. 

Dr David Staveley Professor of New Testament. Specializing in the Pauline Epistles, Apocalyptic Judaism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Posts 13358
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 10 2018 10:35 AM

David Staveley:

Yeah, I see what you are saying now. And in fact, you highlighted a weakness in my initial statement. So, thank you for that. 

It would have been nice for us to discuss this issue more at length. It's such a fascinating area of research. However, as we both know, the rules are against us!

I'm sure if everyone could respond as graciously as that then the rules wouldn't need to exist!

David Staveley:
As for Aune's phrase (who I have read extensively) "charismatic exegesis", I have always found it ugly for some reason. I do agree however, that when we are describing Christian pesher, we need a better phrase. It's just a question of which one. 

I know what you mean. It would make most people who think of charismatic gifts and the charismatic church, which isn't the intent at all.

Posts 26452
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 10 2018 1:40 PM

I'd not run into the term "charismatic exegesis" before. Thank you.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 13358
Forum MVP
Mark Barnes | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 10 2018 2:04 PM

MJ. Smith:

I'd not run into the term "charismatic exegesis" before. Thank you.

If you have David Aune's Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, there's an appendix laying out the thinking. The first paragraph is as follows:

“Charismatic exegesis,” as now understood by biblical scholars, is a very particular form of biblical interpretation based on two presuppositions: (1) The sacred text contains hidden or symbolic meanings which can only be revealed by an interpreter gifted with divine insight, and (2) The true meaning of the text concerns eschatological prophecies which the interpreter believes are being fulfilled in his own day. Charismatic exegesis, then, appears to have three essential features: it is commentary, it is eschatological, and it is inspired. The designation “charismatic exegesis” was apparently first proposed by H. L. Ginsberg as a description of the mode of biblical interpretation practiced by the Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran community as exhibited in the Habakkuk Commentary. Charismatic exegesis has come to be regarded as a characteristic feature of Jewish prophetism in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. By analogy, early Christian biblical interpretation has also been labeled charismatic exegesis, a form of divine revelation closely associated by many NT scholars with the role of the early Christian prophet.

He also has an article in Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation, but that's not in Logos.

Posts 26452
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Aug 10 2018 2:37 PM

Thanks, Mark - I'll check it out.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 1016
EastTN | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Aug 11 2018 12:16 PM

MJ. Smith:

EastTN:
we're proclaiming the Word of God

 

Interesting difference in terminology - in the Catholic tradition "proclaiming the Word of God" is the reading of Scripture in a liturgical context. Preaching is "breaking open the Word" which follows the proclamation.

Thanks for that insight!  I'll try and bear it in mind.  I've become increasingly aware of the extent differences in jargon between traditions contributes to needless misunderstandings between Christians.

Page 2 of 2 (27 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS