(2 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading...QUESTION: (The following question was raised by a reader who objected to Matthew’s attempt to interpret passages in the Hebrew Bible as having relevance for Jesus – especially passages that appear to have been taken radically out of context). Here’s the question:
Well then, the Christians of Matthew’s day did not read the OT very carefully at all. For example, when Matthew says that Jesus returning from Egypt was a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 (out of Egypt have I called my son), did he not read the first part of that verse? It reads “When ISRAEL was a child, I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.” Is this not clearly referring to the Exodus? How could Matthew (or whoever) determine that this referred to Jesus when it clearly states it is Israel?
RESPONSE:
Yes, Matthew certainly did not interpret the Bible the way we would teach people! On the other hand, he does seem to have interpreted it in ways that would have seemed sensible to many ancient readers. The puzzling (and sometimes frustrating) reality is that in the ancient world there were ways of reading sacred texts that simply would never fly today. They may seem like “nonsense” to us – but they made a lot of sense to ancient readers (pagan, Jewish, and Christian).
For ancient Jews and Christians, there were numerous ways sacred texts could be read. They could be seen as allegories, in which the literal meaning was simply the uninteresting surface of the text, and the real meaning was something else. They could be seen as containing secret teachings below the surface that could be unlocked by playing with the numerical significance of the letters of this or that word. They could be seen as looking ahead to people and events that the authors themselves were not aware of (but God, the author of the texts, was aware of). There were, in fact lots of options.
A common Jewish way of reading texts is very similar to what we find in Matthew. We find this approach among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Here’s what I say about it in my textbook on the New Testament.
*******************************************************
Like many other Jews, the Essenes who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls believed that the prophets of Scripture had spoken about events that came to transpire in their own day, centuries later. In the words of the commentary on Habakkuk, “God told Habakkuk to write down that which would happen to the final generation, but He did not make known to him when time would come to an end.” The Essenes had developed a particular method of interpretation to explain these secret revelations of God’s divine purpose. Scholars have called this method of interpretation “pesher,” from the Hebrew word used in the Qumran commentaries to introduce the explanation of a prophetic statement.
The commentaries typically ….
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
*****************************************************
In some ways Matthew’s approach is very similar. Passages of Scripture that appear to us, who read texts literally, to be about one thing actually refer to something else – in this case, not his community but Jesus. I’ll say more about Matthew’s approach to Scripture in the next post.
Very enlightening, thank you.
(This wanders well outside “historical” issues, and a full discussion is beyond the scope of these postings, but just to touch on this subject…)
I’ ve often thought it appropriate to simply assume that passages like these simply have different meanings in different traditions.
That is, given that all religions are syncretic (and require a choice about which of their source traditions they will maintain) and given that all religious texts contain contradictions (and likewise require a decision about how these contradictions will be resolved) it is simply a fact that all religions are based on an agreed-upon set of interpretations.
Even if we set aside such seemingly “radical” modes of interpretations like Pesher it seems, to me, reasonable to simply assume that certain passages (e.g. Is 7.14) have different interpretation –or, if you wiil, different meanings– between Jews an Christians.
Thank you.
Just as a footnote, there are lots of groups that engage in this basic practice (that is, an interpretation of Biblical texts that would strike the casual reader as pretty far removed from a literal interpretation).
As far as Christianity we need look no farther than the Gnostics (or modern writers of books such as the _Left Behind_ series). As far as Judaism, while in most cases it might not involve such extreme examples as those cited from the Habukkuk Pesher above, it is worth noting that a great deal of the Mishnah and Talmud themselves do quite a bit along these lines.
On what authority are these rather remarkable, to a modern eye, leaps made? I assume that a leader, with appropriate credentials, would have the gift of making these interpretations and pass on the results to the congregation or lay audience. Is this basically what was in play?
On the surface the interpretations – the pesher – seem to be capable of saying anything the commentator might want? How would such individuals deal with the left over, irrelevant bits? That is, to further explore the Matthew link touched on above, why would Matthew take a phrase from a sentence and load it with such meaning, when the full sentence is unambiguously something else quite pedestrian? How would a commentator retain credibility in this case?
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is king!” perhaps covers it. No doubt the vast majority of the congregation were illiterate.
There was an entire “science” behind it, involving the deep and subtle analysis of key words in particular. But it’s not a science that many would hold to today (at least among professional interpreters).
So, verses say what they say because that is what the interpreters say they say?
Sounds familiar. 😉
Interesting post. I am currently working on a book called “Bible Games” where I investigate how ancient sects interpreted scripture to suit the most bizarre of beliefs. Here is a small extract:
==============
Some gnostics, for instance, believed the demiurge was ignorant and naïve rather than downright evil, and provided a very moving explanation to an otherwise ordinary story in the bible:
‘When [Jesus] entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard him, he was amazed…And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour.’(Mt. 8:5-13)
The gnostics interpreted this paragraph with unparalleled beauty. The centurion, they argued, was the demiurge. The demiurge refers to his angels when he says he has soldiers under his authority. The paralyzed servant is humanity, which suffers from all kinds of spiritual diseases. The demiurge did his best to save humanity by means of the Mosaic Law. But the law brought only death; it failed to change people to the better and only brought penalties on the transgressors. Realizing his attempt to redeem humanity has failed, the demiurge resorts to Jesus. He tells him that he is not worthy to have him under his roof, which means that the demiurge doesn’t deserve to have Jesus come down to his lesser world. But he only asks Jesus to speak a word to heal his son. This perfectly accords with the gnostic doctrine, which holds that Jesus’ mission was to promulgate secret teachings, not to die for people’s sins. This interpretation is documented by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.vii.4) and also survives in Heracleon’s commentary on John 4:46-54.
Sometimes I think you’re too forgiving of these ancient documents. If someone tried to pull a “pesher” reading of the sort today, many would see him as either illogical or perhaps even a fraud trying to dupe people into their cult. I don’t see why this can’t apply to the author of Matthew also. It’s not like there weren’t ancients who saw through this illogic and called them out on it. I’m currently listening to an audiobook of Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” and most of the criticisms he makes of gnostic teachings I’m finding quite humorous and mostly spot on in the illogic he sees. But then I find myself calling back to him “but you’re doing the same thing when you believe x, y and z!!”
The Pesher hermeneutics does seem peculiar to modern-day readers with a modernist hermeneutics. But on closer reflection, a type of hermeneutics loosely akin of Pesher is quite common in some charismatic Christian circles who think much of the Bible is specifically tailored to individuals today: they would pick passages and verses, sometimes at random, and then ask what God is speaking to them TODAY, with minimal attention to the passage’s context. For example, back in 2000, Bruce Wilkinson published “The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life” which went on to become an international bestseller selling 9 million copies. It abstracts 1 Chronicles 4:9-10 from original historical context, and makes it a universal blessing God makes to Christians today.
Another message popular with charismatics is Jeremiah 29:11 (“For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”) interpreted to mean God has these prosperity plans for whoever is reading the Bible (provide they hold to the right charismatic beliefs).
I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness and I can assure you this way of finding hidden meaning in Bible accounts is alive and well. Witnesses see the original stories as “types” and consider themselves to be the “antitypes.” For example, Noah and the flood can be seen to have a modern day, “antitypical” fulfillment. Noah represents Christ. Noah’s wife represents the “bride of Christ” who are considered to be those faithful members of the 144,000 of Revelation who are alive in our day (many of whom are directing the preaching work of witnesses from Walkill, New York). Noah’s sons along with their wives represent those who are brought into the safety of the modern day “ark” which is God’s organization, otherwise known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. These followers of God will survive Armageddon just as those on the ark came through the flood. After Armageddon they will repopulate the earth. I don’t know if witnesses still have the same fondness for types and antitypes as in the past, but they definitely used
to teach this stuff!
Given the popularity of pesher method among some Jewish and Christian circles in 1st century, how might this have affected the way authors wrote their own accounts of events in their own day? That is, the evangelist Matthew thought it legitimate to use Pesher method to read Hosiah. Would Matthew himself readily entertained the prospect that readers of his gospel could apply a pesher method to his text? Or would he have objected to readers treating his own text in this manner?
In some sense, Matthew and the Essenes were proto-post-modernists.
Good question! I suppose we have no way of knowing.
Hi Bart. Since I was the one who posed the question, I would like to add a couple of thoughts and pose another question that I think would be relevant here. First, the Jews of today certainly view Matthew’s interpretations of OT passages as “out of context,” misleading or just flat out wrong. I have been to many Jewish sites and observed this. And the Jews ought to know. It’s their scriptures. My question is: In the case of the Ebionites, which if I recall correctly were Jewish Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, did they also accept Matthew’s interpretations of these alleged prophecies? Or were they believers despite what I see as Matthew’s
reckless use, or rather abuse, of many OT passages?
My view is that the interpretations are only reckless to those of us trained in a different approach to reading sacred texts. Unfortunately, we don’t know what the Ebionites would have made of Matthew’s interpretations
This clarifies some things for me. I’d wondered whether well-educated early followers of Jesus deliberately took passages from Jewish Scripture out of context, and lied to the illiterate majority about what they meant. If there was an actual tradition of believing something you knew or thought to be true *had to* be the hidden meaning of some earlier prophecy, it’s more understandable.
But only for *some* things. I can understand that if “Matthew,” for example, knew something to be factual (the crucifixion) or had convinced himself it was factual (the resurrection), he would have sure there *had to* be “prophecies” to be uncovered, somewhere. But how could he have come to believe something as outlandish as Herod’s supposed massacre of children had really taken place? Could a tradition that bizarre have developed? Assuming there was no such tradition, he must have come up with an outrageous, slanderous *lie* to make the facts parallel (supposed) ancient history.
Yes, a tradition like that certainly did develop! Otherwise we wouldn’t have heard of it!
Every day I’m becoming more eager for that book you’re going to write, on how oral traditions developed!
Me too!
Some of these interpretations remind me of what George Bernard Shaw said: “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says. He is always convinced that it says what he means.”
That’s a good one!
Who were the gospel writers intending to evangelize to? The gospels were each written outside of Palestine in Greek, but they appeal to the OT for authority and as evidence for the fulfillment of scripture. Was the interned audience Greek speaking Jews living through out the Roman world? Or, were there many gentiles who were familiar with or practicing the Jewish religion? I’d read that Emperor Claudius was concerned because the practice of “Eastern Religions” which had become popular in Rome. So was there a fad amongst Romans to to dabble in Jewish religion through which they would have gained exposure and a superficial understanding of the OT?
My view (it’s the most common view among scholars — in fact, I think it’s a very wide consensus) is that the Gospels were not evangelizing documents, but in-house books, written for Christians.
any text
taken out of context
is a pretext
to error…
and so it goes …
world without end
Thank you (catching up)