We have already covered a lot of ground this semester.
- We have tried to get a sense of the place of the NT within the wide range of biblical and biblically-related literature in the first few centuries BCE and CE. This has included looking at biblical versions (and text critical issues as well), intertestamental literature (OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha), NT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Early Xn Fathers, Philo, Jospehus, and rabbinic literature.
- We have looked at the exegetical methods of the Jewish and Christian authors of the first century.
- We have considered what is actually happening or being accomplished when a NT author cites or alludes to an OT text. Prophecy? Typology? Analogy? Simply using biblical language? Fulfillment?
- We have examined many OT and NT texts to see firsthand how this OT in the NT stuff works.
As we come to the last few weeks of the semester, what questions still remain for you?
Are their topics or issues you had hoped we would cover and haven’t?
Please leave a comment!
I have enjoyed the course, but am not sure, beyond gaining a better understanding of the texts, how I would be able to use the information & techniques in the parish.
Also, I’m not totally clear on the deciphering prophecy and typology.
In the parish and in other classes, I find that, surprisingly often, I draw upon what I have learned in this class. That’s the best indication of a good learning experience.
I think at times there has been so much ground to cover that the proverbial mashed potatoes were simply thrown against the wall…I’m grateful for all that “stuck” but equally aware of all that slid down my mental walls to the floor…
Things I found most valuable:
1. Learning about Jewish interpretation/commentary techniques;
2. Learning about the rich repository of material in the Pseudepigrapha;
3. Learning detective techniques/resources for tracking down where/how a NT author was getting/using an OT quote.
Where could we have improved?
1. Around the middle of the course we became very intentional about asking the “so what” question; we would have benefited by being more intentional about that earlier in the course.
2. I would like to get a better handle (if one can be gotten) on how we determine if an NT interpretation/use of an OT text is “faithful” within our Christian faith tradition and when it is exegetically abusive.
3. A lot of times we danced around the issue of whether a NT author was quoting someone (like Jesus) using an OT quote or whether the author conveniently “supplied” that quote for effect. There’s no way for any of us to determine with certainty what happened. But I think we should be better prepared to address possibility #2 in a way that does not destroy faith, because the question WILL eventually arise within the parish.
4. I would have liked a historical review of how Christians have interpreted NT use of OT passages. It could be a general overview or trace the interpretation of one specific NT passage. Doing so would provide a framework for what has come before and where we are now.
Hope this is constructive and helpful!
I would echo what has been shared above in terms of the areas which I have been able to explore and find enlightening. This has given me some new resources, some of which I have been able to use and carry over into parish practice, for both my own ediifcation and in teaching. The biggest challenge is education without de-construction in ways which a context is not prepared to undertake. I think our process has been one which has taken shape across the weeks and been somewhat refined along the way. For me some historical review as Scott mentions to tie things together in light of our learning would be useful. One other thing I have seen useful is the contemplation of how Rabbinic scholars have wrestled with the word of God in ways we perhaps have not, and the depth of contemplation of Scripture of which we are the beneficiaries.
I, like Brian, am not too clear on the typology issue, but I am sure with time that will become clearer.
This was a wonderful class and I learned so much. I cannot say that I have any one specific question. I would like to say that I feel with the information gained about how to go about researching and sifting through all the ancient documents I know this will be of help to me in the future exegetical endeavors.
My eyes have been opened to new horizons whereby I will be able to access information I did not even know existed before this class.
I am sure the tools and skills learned in this class will be of service to me in my internship year as well as in my future pastoral assignment.
I would have like to have learned more about the connection between the apocalyptic texts in the Old Testament and the New Testament. That however, is the only thing that I have to say. Otherwise I feel fulfilled.
I am still confused about the methodology of messianic exegesis. It still seems to me like a treasure hunt without a map.
What are we missing? That’s a rough question. I don’t think we’re “missing” anything – there’s too much to explore, too much to consider and ponder and meditate upon. I’m not “blowing sunshine up your butt,” I’m being sincere. As many of you know, this class has seriously pushed my hermeneutic – forcing it to expand to new horizons. What does it mean to be the living Word? This is my newest question raised by this class. But I don’t know what “we’re missing”… sorry.
P.S. There are always specific texts I’d like to examine, but there isn’t the time to examine them all…
I’m grateful for the opportunity to have examined the text and understand the Gospel writer’s motives as he attempted to proclaim the Good News of Christ to the people of the first century. Luke served as a good model to me as he made the Scripture of the Old Testament relevant in the lives of his listeners, while he helped them understand how their faith tradition was changing/evolving. I hope to be able to imitate Luke as he offered new ways to think about God and the new opportunities for joy and salvation.