The same lecturer who made the analogy I used in my previous post, has some interesting thoughts on this issue. Below is my understanding of his main argument.
The Old Testament was written, read and then re-read by communities down through history, up to the present day. In fact, it was the re-reading and re-appropriation of many of the Psalms that led to their collection and eventual canonisation. For example, Psalm 2 starts ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’. This was probably used originally at successive Judean king’s coronations. However, it was likely collected and canonised due to eschatological re-readings surrounding hope (that is re-readings appropriating the language to the Messiah), after the exile to Babylon. And more recently, the passage has been re-read christologically (that is with Christ in mind) by the New Testament writers (e.g Heb 1:5). The process of re-reading and appropriation is therefore intrinsic to much of the Old Testament.
Jesus also partook in the tradition of re-reading the psalms. His beatitude about the meek inheriting the earth is a re-reading of an ancient Hebrew idea expressed clearly in psalms 25 and 37 (amongst others); the idea of land. In his appropriation, Jesus stretches ‘land’ to refer to the whole earth, he stretches the chronology of the passage to refer to the Age to come, and his promise includes all followers of Jesus, not just the nation of Israel.
Jesus constructs a trajectory of meaning that arches across time, cultures and covenants. The pillars of this trajectory include Deuteronomy and psalms 25 & 37. This allows us to bridge the chasm between author and reader without denying it’s existence.
What do you all think, a solution or not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
So Jesus is kind of the bridge by which we are to read the entire OT, and also I guess the NT? I like the idea- its a Christocentric hermeneutic isn't it. I was thinking about the benefits of that a little while ago, and of course with passage like Psalm 2, its great, but with lets say the book of Numbers, are we really able to use the same criteria, or will we be looking for something thats not there? I'm not sure, but I think it sounds great.
Also, with reading and re-reading, does that mean that there are multiple truths to the text, or just one. I.e. is the 'right' interpretation of Psalm 2 about Judean kings, about a Jewish Messiah, or Jesus? Or all 3? (obviously Christians say Jesus is the Messiah, but I hope you get my point)
If there can be multiple readings of the text, why can't we add our own one to it, and appropriate it to our own context by totally changing its meaning? Or should we only look at it from 2 perspectives- its original perspective, and the new one that Jesus has given it?
Finally mate, I think that you have a broken link on the first line of the post, it didn't work on mine anyway. I've also started to read 'A new kind of Christian', its cool so far. And for any of you who don't know, Trev's gone and got himself a blog
jon. or anyone else who reads this help me god
I now have a blog
http://computerwrecker.blogspot.com
but I have no idea what to do with it or how to add links or let all you guys know I have one.
HELP ME!!!!
beckyc
Ben, all I am saying that the concept of re-reading and re-appropriating the text is something which is integral to Scripture itself (i.e it's not just our problem). Is it a good thing? I think that's the wrong question, we don't have an option but to do it if the text is to be an authority today. I obviously didn't make myself clear about the nature of the re-reading, but in short, no (See my response to Tim below).
Tim, yes a christocentric hermeneutic is used by the NT writers with psalm 2. However, the earlier Jewish interpretations (referring to Messiah etc.) weren't. Plus, the example I used of Jesus' interpretation of Psalms 25 and 37 doesn't. That involves a re-interpretation of the concept of land, time, and inclusivity. Re-readings won't just be Christocentric.
There is evidently only one original meaning. However, as we look for the text to be authoritative today, we inevitably have to engage in hermeneutics. So which re-reading is right? I think this is the wrong question, a better one would be, do the re-readings bridge the gap between author and reader without denying it's existence? In both cases I think the answer is yes.
With regards to whether we can do we want with the text, i don't think so. Once we acknowledge the gap between ourself and the reader, then we will be very cautious about appropriating it today. For example, a bad reading of Psalm 25 and 37 (where they refer to land) would be to read it as justification for my taking land off my next door neighbour. This denies the difference in contexts between me and the author. However, once that is realised, I can construct a trajectory of meaning that applies to my situation as long as I am careful with the text. Jesus does this in the beatitudes, he takes the promise of land back to Genesis 1 to include the whole of the earth.
I know this isn't very clear, but i am trying to get an idea out that I don't really fully understand myself. Ask me another question and might help clarify my messy brain.
So the first thing that should be done is to place the text in its original context. Then we engage in a sort of re-appropriation of the text for our own lives, but without contradicting the original meaning of the text. Exergesis then application.
It might just work...
But what would you say about passages that are anti women, homosexual, or ones that encourage genocide? How do you intend to interpret them, because while we might begin with the same exergesis, what you and I might chise to keep about a passage may differ a lot. I might say homosexuality is ok, but stone people who are immoral, but you might say homosexuality is wrong, stoning is what they did back in the day though, not now. I know its a poor, crude example, but do you see the idea I'm trying to get at? There is still a lot of scope for dramatically different interpretations.
Yes, this does leave lots of room for dramatically different interpretations. I don't think there is a way out of that problem. But that doesn't mean that we can't discuss whether those interpretations are valid or not. The key will always be acknowledging the text as other and different from our contexts and then attempting to construct a trajectory of meaning that expands the scope to include our day. A very difficult task, but one integral to Scripture itself.
just testing for my aggregator
another aggregator test
Mine sometimes doesn't read posts either, so every now and then I republish the entire blog, then it updates them.
Now stop trying to build up your totals, you aren't going to reach Scrivs record that way.
Busted
Post a Comment