Monday, September 18, 2006

Translation and Readings have been completed!

Thanks for the prayers, the Lord answered them in the affirmative! I was able to finish reading the papers I needed to read in preparation for my class and I was able to translate Matthew 5-6. I'm now trying to memorize the passages so that I can pass the quiz (prayer would be appreciated -- I take the test tomorrow). I'm a little rusty in Greek, so this should be interesting.

I mentioned that I might post something about the Green paper and I think that I can sum it up in this: what is the genre of the Old Testament and how should we read the Old Testament? And I think Green's answer to these questions would be that you should read the Bible as redemptive history and to do that you should read the Old Testament as if you had never heard the gospel. A complete grammatical-historical (how the text was intended to be read by the author)read. This is a first reading of the text. It's like when you read a murder mystery and you have no idea who the killer is, as you read you pick up clues and then at the end the killer is revealed. Reading with no knowledge of the ending.

After you've read the Bible from the aspect of the writer then you read it again from the aspect of the end of the story -- from the aspect of the Gospel. That's the second reading of the text. It's reading a murder mystery a second time with the knowledge of who was the killer. You will look at the story differently now that you know who did it. You will be able to see clues that you missed before. The movie The Sixth Sense is a perfect example of this, it is a completely different movie when you watch it with the understanding of what you discover at the end.

You really can't understand the story of redemption completely and what the Old Testament is about if you skip the first reading and go immediately to the seconding reading.

The paper that I had linked on Friday to will give you more insight into first readings and second readings. I think it might be worth your time to check it out.

14 Comments:

  1. CyberCelt said...
    Here for C&C Monday. You are a busy woman. How do you do everything?
    michele said...
    I don't do everything, it only appears that way.
    Moonshadow said...
    This approach is second nature for me.

    I liked section II of Rev. Dr. Steinmetz's paper, especially the third element:

    "The church in the third century believed it had not only received the Septuagint from Jewish translators and a New Testament from the circles of the apostles; it had also received a second narrative that unlocked the mysteries of both."

    "The second narrative of the mystery novelist is the product of rational reflection on a wide range of evidence, a good deal of which was present in the beginning for anyone who had eyes to see it. The second narrative of the early Christian church was based primarily on later events—that is to say, on what early Christians thought had happened in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But in both cases, once the second narrative is in place, it is impossible to understand earlier events apart from it. In the order of being, the second narrative comes last. In the order of knowing, it comes first." (emphasis mine)

    And so the last pieces of the Gospels to be written were the Infancy Narratives. Once the end of the story was known, the beginning could be told.

    I also like this article from him "What Luther Got Wrong," because, well, I've always wondered why Augustinian Protestant theologians neglect Aquinas!

    The Green paper is unpublished? Should you be making public unpublished ideas?
    michele said...
    It is for me as well and if I quoted Green, I don't think he would have been thrilled but what I wrote here is something I was taught a couple years ago in OTI, so it's not like it's a secret.
    Carrie said...
    I don't know if I need to follow Green's method, some of us are more simple.

    Everytime I watch E.T. I cry when E.T. dies even though I know he is going to come back to life. What is up with that!

    Actually, I don't think I could read the OT without thinking about the Gospel. Too much symbolism to ignore, I wouldn't be able to pretend like I didn't know the ending.

    There. I have fulfilled your one random comment quota for the day.
    michele said...
    I have a random comment quota ?

    Carrie, if you always bring in the Gospel, then you will miss what the original (human) author intended and you would miss what the original readers actually got (though it is very hard to know what the original author intended). It would help you understand the story of Israel better and it would help you to see just how "wacky" the NT writers' interpretation of the OT was.

    Besides, grammo-historical reading of the OT is the norm.
    Carrie said...
    You lost me.

    Did you just kick up your intelligence a few notches since seminary started back up or am I getting dumber?

    Were you in favor of the Green way or not?
    michele said...
    I guess seminary does force you to use big words :-)

    I'm in favor of reading the Bible the way that he suggests because it makes the most sense. It's important to understand the OT in it's own term before you read the gospel back into it. A perfect example of that would be Genesis 17, what did it mean for the Israelite to be God's people? Reading the gospel into the passage changes the answer to that question.

    BTW, there is a difference between Green and article I linked to. I wouldn't necessarily agree with all aspects of that article. But I thought it was interesting.
    Pamela said...
    sometimes I look at the old Test as a map...
    and the new Test as the destination

    ............

    and then once you get there... you realize the map was necessary only to show you the old road
    michele said...
    Well, I learned from my most recent "old" test that I'm really going to have to study because I'm pretty rusty in Greek.
    Carrie said...
    Okay. You meant what you said in the post. I understood that part.

    It was what I hope was sarcasm about the human authors intent and the wacky NT writers that then confused me.
    michele said...
    It wasn't sarcasm, it was more like a commentary (not meant disrepectfully). The NT writers did not use a grammo-historical method of interpretation (they were not literal interpretations). Their interpretations sometimes didn't have too much to do with the context of the passage they were quoting. A perfect example of this is Matthew 2:15, another is Galatians 3:16 and how Matthew applies the prophecy to Isaiah to Christ (in Hebrew the word used isn't virgin but young maid) and it seems like such a weird fit. There are many more examples I could site.

    The reason for this is that they were reading Christ into the Old Testament. They understood that He was the fulfillment of the OT and that all Scriptures speak of Him. So, they could take a passage that didn't appear to be about Christ and show that it was. This interpretation methodology was pretty popular at the time.

    And btw, aren't you Reformed? I started answering your RC Sproul question and go distracted. I would recommend it to anyone who is a Calvinist (and even those who aren't :-).
    Carrie said...
    This interpretation methodology was pretty popular at the time.

    What do you mean by that? I understand the NT writers quoting the OT may seem to be a weird fit but it is obviously a perfect fit since it is all the same author.

    I guess I don't get the point of a literal interpretation of the OT in the absence of the NT as we now have the whole book and understand the purpose. It is almost irrelevant of what the literal reading is since the whole purpose was to point to Christ. Or are you saying the OT had some sort of secondary purposeful meaning for the Jews in the absence of the NT.

    I know you are busy so if you don't have time to answer that is fine. You just scared me a minute but I know there must be a reasonable explanation in their somewhere.

    No, I am not reformed. Not sure what you would call me, but I am not a Calvinist (at least not yet).
    michele said...
    You realize that I'm not saying that it was strange to quote the OT just the way that they quoted it.

    See, the problem is that it's important to understand the history of Israel in it's own right, why else would they be given so much room in the Bible. More is written on Israel than on Adam and the church combined. Why? Why is it important for a Christian to understand salvation before Christ? In fact, what did salvation mean to the OT reader? What did the covenant mean? How did they view God? Understanding the Old Testament is just as important as understanding the New because it's the word of God.

    And as I said before, you can't understand how the gospel can be read the gospel into the passage without understanding the passage to begin with. Grammo-historical interpretation is just reading the passage as is.

    This might become clearer when I post my exegesis paper. I'm thinking about doing Genesis 17 (some part of it).

    I'm surprised that you aren't a Calvinist. If you want to be like me when you grow up, you better get going :-) Reading Chosen by God is a good start.

Post a Comment



Design | Elque 2007