BronzeArcher
November 5th 2005, 09:40 PM
I've been reading Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period 2nd ed. by Longenecker. I just want to check my understanding of what pesher and midrash is, then toss out some phil of religion questions.
Pesher, if I understand it correctly, is the kind of interpretation that takes prophecies and purports to show that they are fulfilled. Take, for example, a slice of prophecy. Pesher interpretation would say, 'this slice of prophecy means this' and then refer to a situation, often contemporary. Also, your face is pesher.
Midrash is basically taking a text and then 'making' it relevant. It has some rules like qal wahomer: what applies in a lesser case applies in a greater case.
---
In the preface, Longenecker discusses the question of whether the methods used by early Christians should be taken to be normative. He says no, and I find his argument pretty compelling.
He notes some of the means used to discern the will of God. Dreams, visions, actions of prophets, Urim and Thummim in a breastplate... and the Acts bit about casting lots to see who'd replace Judas.
He distinguishes between normative theo/ethical principles and culturally conditioned methods used to support/communicate them. But he considers the NT writer's interpretations to be normative, while their methods not.
I'm wondering if that distinction is a defensible one. How do you, in this case, accept early Christian interpretations if you basically reject their methods?
This is especially problematic for me since not only do I consider the meaning of a text to be what its author intended, I consider application of a text to a contemporary time suspicious--I'm not too comfortable with saying that a text has many intended meanings but I don't say that it isn't possible.
Secondly, if their methods are to be rejected, what does that say about their understanding of Scripture?
I think it's quite possible to use faulty methods and come to true conclusions, but does that entail misunderstanding by early Christians?
Please offer your thoughts! :smile:
Pesher, if I understand it correctly, is the kind of interpretation that takes prophecies and purports to show that they are fulfilled. Take, for example, a slice of prophecy. Pesher interpretation would say, 'this slice of prophecy means this' and then refer to a situation, often contemporary. Also, your face is pesher.
Midrash is basically taking a text and then 'making' it relevant. It has some rules like qal wahomer: what applies in a lesser case applies in a greater case.
---
In the preface, Longenecker discusses the question of whether the methods used by early Christians should be taken to be normative. He says no, and I find his argument pretty compelling.
He notes some of the means used to discern the will of God. Dreams, visions, actions of prophets, Urim and Thummim in a breastplate... and the Acts bit about casting lots to see who'd replace Judas.
He distinguishes between normative theo/ethical principles and culturally conditioned methods used to support/communicate them. But he considers the NT writer's interpretations to be normative, while their methods not.
I'm wondering if that distinction is a defensible one. How do you, in this case, accept early Christian interpretations if you basically reject their methods?
This is especially problematic for me since not only do I consider the meaning of a text to be what its author intended, I consider application of a text to a contemporary time suspicious--I'm not too comfortable with saying that a text has many intended meanings but I don't say that it isn't possible.
Secondly, if their methods are to be rejected, what does that say about their understanding of Scripture?
I think it's quite possible to use faulty methods and come to true conclusions, but does that entail misunderstanding by early Christians?
Please offer your thoughts! :smile: