CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE METHOD OF STUDY

What is the right way to delineate the Messianic mystery? How can we find 'the very voice', the ipsissima vox, which will expound the Bible in the spirit of the Bible? Formally, we expect true scholarship to observe pre-determined methods. It is true that many of the so-called 'Messianic prophecies' to which the NT refers can be interpreted in the context of the early stages of Israel's history, and scientifically speaking, this historical background is the only legitimate and correct interpretation model which has any bearing on the issue. Nevertheless, the NT writers understood the texts "prophetically" and gave them a Christological interpretation. This means that they did not proceed "historicocritically" or strictly scientifically, in the way that modern theologians wish they would: for today's critics such ways of interpretation are artificial. We must therefore ask ourselves, Does the NT's "suprahistorical" approach reflect the central characteristics of the Messianic interpretation as it appeared in ancient times? And if so, the modern critic must find methods which will bring out, just as was manifestly obvious at the time of its origin, the full import and internal consistency of the subject he is studying. If no success has as yet been met with here, there is good reason to seek a method which will be more suited to the subject matter.

We could define the difference between homiletics and theological reseach as being that theology strives to explain what each word of the Bible meant at the time it was written down, and homiletics primarily what the man of today can get out of it. It could be said that historicocritical studies have been unable or reluctant to understand the NT's Christology and its grounds. That is why it is necessary to find tools with which to dig more deeply into the roots of the Messianic idea.

We are hardly likely to turn up a Philosopher's Stone which would solve all these problems, but there are three factors which will help us to get near to the heart of our problem.

    1. We need to determine what modes of thinking and presentation held sway between the Old and New Testaments, the crucible in which Christianity was formed.
    2. In the same way the problem ought to be solved as to how a discipline outside of the 'hard sciences' can find the internal integrity of its subject without doing violence to the real intentions of the people under study.
    3.Furthermore, in choosing a method of study we must always determine which sources are most capable of shedding light on the ways of thinking current in the era in question.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIBLICAL AND WESTERN WAYS OF THINKING

The well-known Jewish writer Schalom Ben-Chorin characterises in one of his books the essential differences between Greek learning and Biblical thought.1 The Greek world strove to find orderly rules, a method which obtained from Aristotle to Hegel: details were then fitted into larger wholes and forced into preformed structures. Hebrew thought, on the other hand, proceeds from details to rules, from concrete observations to ideals. Thus the Bible knows neither dogma nor system as such. Rather, it exhibits two typical basic aims: narrative, and a law intended as a guide to life. The Pentateuch, Psalms, and Prophets relate over and over again the great works of God. Thus historical facts are preserved unchanged, even though their interpretation receives a new colouring according to the requirements of each respective age. Neither does the sacred law as revealed in the commandments change with the changing fashions. In place of the Greek love of system the Bible exemplifies associative thinking, in which every detail is immediately related to the whole and all the parts are interdependent.

This same associative principle is found throughout the Rabbinic literature right down to our own time. Recently the NT too has, in both Jewish and Christian circles, been studied as a kind of Midrash, as a creation similar to the preaching-exegesis of the synagogue, observing the laws of Jewish Biblical interpretation. Fundamental to this approach is the axiom that every detail of the revelation of God, the Torah, is to be expounded and must be explained both in relation to the subject under discussion and as an independent entity, because the word of God never loses its 'literal sense'. Furthermore, every argument is to be backed up with a word of Scripture because the opinions of men are in themselves of no value.

The Midrash often repeats the Aramaic saying, Hâ bê-hâ talî, "This depends on this", forming internal bridges within the Bible's own message. Time and time again we are told that such and such a Sage has said in this or that other Sage's name, "as it is written, va-gomer... " ('and so forth... '). Then no more than the first few words of the Bible quote are given, the reader, knowing the Scriptures off by heart, recites the remainder silently to himself. This kind of OT use gives a certain "comprehensivity" to the whole presentation and prevents philosophising of an over-subjective kind.

Even a short Midrash may contain hundreds of OT quotes and the names of hundreds of Rabbis. In this way the whole presentation is anchored in history and in the tradition of the synagogue. We can see the same principle in operation in the NT which, according to Nestle's Greek register, contains 993 separate OT references.

In addition to the 'associative principle' the Old Synagogue used various expressions which, outside of its own literature, appear only in the NT. The so-called middôth or "measures" -- the ways of interpretation, of which there are 7,13,32 or even 70 -- help in checking the text's internal connections, taking into consideration the 'literal sense', Peshat; the 'hint' or 'quotes', Remez; the 'homiletics' or 'spiritual message', Drashah; and the 'mystery' Sôd. These four Hebrew words form the mnemonic PaRDeS or 'paradise', to which the Bible is often compared.

In the teaching of both Jesus and Paul we find here and there certain stylistic devices such as al tiqrâ, 'read not thus, but thus'; tartei mashma, 'the word has another meaning'; muqdam umeuhar, 'noting the earlier and later'; the change of word roots, and various forms of expression which the Midrash literature exemplifies.2 They all spring from Jewish thought patterns.

No serious NT or OT study can be developed in ignorance of the special character of Hebrew thought and the soil from which the NT and OT originated.
 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARACTERS OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND THE HUMANITIES

The research methods of the natural sciences and the humanities are considered to be fundamentally different from each other. The study of religion, ethics, and eg. aesthetics often have to content themselves with narrative and hermeneutic interpretation. The study of Method distinguishes between the nomothetic or the search for general laws (Greek nomos) and idiographic, that is, disciplines concerned with individual ideas and facts.3

Aristotle created the topika (from topos 'place') according to which in rhetoric and in the study of juridic problems philosophers attempted to find the leading motifs -- later it was developed by eg. Giovanni Batista Vico, who is considered to be the founder of the history of Philosophy.4  For this reason the humanities ought to survey the whole field of human thinking and put the main aspects in their place. Only from a wider "topical" -- I might almost say "topographical" -- base for comparison can the significance of the whole picture be envisaged. Theology is one of these "idiographic" disciplines which must be studied in the light of their own special laws. If this theological "autonomy" is overlooked, the whole object of the studies will be violated.

So that we might understand just how fundamental an issue is in question, it is worth looking at how Ye .hezkel Koifman assesses the state of today's Theology.5 In his four volume work "The Religious History of Israel from ancient times to the end of the Second Temple", he describes how Israel had its own personally stamped spiritual revelation, which does not lend itself to analysis by the usual historical criticism. It is not possible, for example, to think of Israel's religion as developing from the Canaanite cult which Israel destroyed, because in those areas where the cult was allowed to remain, no corresponding religion of revelation developed. Professor Koifman stresses that,

    "Biblical studies in our day are faced with a rather strange situation: it is bound by the 'dominant method', although no-one knows exactly why this method 'dominates' research. It sometimes happens in the Humanities that some thesis or tenet which was originally founded on definite, generally accepted axioms maintains an artificial existence even after those axioms have been discredited. In our time this has also happened to Biblical studies... " The critical proofs of Wellhausen and other liberals faded out long ago... " "In the interim those axioms have one after another been retracted and broken down...  and the protagonists of that school have been forced to admit that, for the most part their proofs can no longer stand up to criticism. But still they will not retract their conclusions, especially not those regarding literary criticism."

Professor Kaufmann maintains that, "historical truth is crystallised in the Bible message to a much greater extent than the Wellhausen school reckoned." Regarding the Pentateuch he says that,

    "Today it can be shown that even if it were arranged and compiled after the time of Moses its source material is very old, not only in part or in its general tenor, but in its entirety, in its content, language, and even in its very letters."
For this reason the researcher ought to extend his critical attitude to critical studies as well.

METHOD, AND THE CHOICE OF THE APPROPRIATE SOURCE MATERIAL

Jewish tradition contains many tales of the Wise Youngsters of Jerusalem. Once someone asked one of them the way to a certain village. He answered, "Do you want the short long road or the long short one?" A shortcut may have obstacles which require a great deal of time to get over or round. And so a road which at first glance looks long may turn out to be the shortest. In this way the preceding introduction with information regarding the method has served as the key to what follows.
In our attempt to find the roots of our Christian faith it will be important while dealing with the OT and NT to select sources which will delineate as early as possible an understanding of the Bible and the way of thinking of the people we will be studying. The choice of an appropriate source material is always a part of research.

Even though the Messianic concept in Judaism today has come in for some rather roughhanded treatment, at the beginning of our era it was still of central significance. The main work of Judaic legislation, the Talmud, compiled over a period of three centuries from around the year 200, comprising 60 separate treatises in 13 thick volumes, states simply that, "All the prophets prophesied not but of the days of the Messiah." "The world was not created but only for the Messiah"6  These statements lay the foundation for the entire discussion between Judaism and Christianity.

In the years of its formation the Talmud underwent its own internal censorship. Its scholars consciously avoided speaking about the Christian faith and certain Messianic prophecies, which were considered sensitive issues. In addition to this the Catholic church in the Middle Ages pressurised Jews into removing from the Talmud certain portions which were from a Christian point of view considered offensive -- they were actually preserved in a separate pamphlet which I also have. This "great silence", as the scholars sometimes characterize it, and the "double censorship" have resulted that the Christian Church has seldom received any help from Jews in getting to know its own roots.

In the main body of the book we will discuss the date and significance of the various source texts. Even at this stage, however, it is worth noting two primary sources -- the Midrash and the Targum -- which have not suffered the similar strict censorship which befell the Talmud.

The MIDRASH or "exposition", the synagogue's 'homiletic literature', which follows a certain, often strictly defined, form, dates in its six oldest Midrash sections from the second century AD, although they received their final written form in the 5th or 6th century. The censorship peculiar to the synagogue cannot be seen in them, and their tradition can often be traced back to before the time of Christ. In addition, there are another thirty or so later Midrash works which also here and there shed some light on the Messianic concept.7

The TARGUMS are explanatory versions of the OT in Aramaic. As they stand they also give support to the Jewish expositors of the Torah. The Talmud states that, "The whole Torah in its entirety is in Hebrew, but certain things from the Targum also belong to it."8  Only the Targum of Onqelos received the synagogue's official approval. It contains expository material on the whole Pentateuch and dates from the 2nd century AD. The Targums which go under the name of Jonathan Ben  Uzziel were written later on the basis of a tradition which was handed down from one generation to another, although Jonathan himself lived very near to Jesus' time. The Targum of Jonathan contains also material which, according to some, dates from as far back as the 2nd century BC.

Just as in the Midrash literature the hand of the censor is not obvious in the Targums. This is further illustrated by the fact that, according to counts made, 72 OT passages are explained in the Targums as applying to the Messiah.

More than the other Targums, the tradition associated with the name of Jonathan highlights the Messianic concept, and for this reason we will describe him in the light of the Talmud.

Jonathan was the greatest pupil of the elder Hillel before the destruction of the Temple. One traditional account relates that Hillel had 80 pupils:

    "40 of them earned the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, just as Moses did. 30 that the sun would stand still above them, as in the time of Joshua the son of Nun; 20 were average; but the greatest of them was Jonathan Ben  Uzziel, and the least Johanan Ben Zakkai. ... and let it be remembered that the latter was the creator of the renaissance of the Torah in Jamnia immediately after the destruction of the Temple." 9

Jonathan translated the prophets into Aramaic, accompanied with brief explanations. His work of course aroused opposition from the scholars of the time, as they felt that the Hebrew original would thus be forgotten. But, in his own words, Jonathan went ahead so that doctrinal disputes would not multiply in Israel. It is remarkable that the synagogue accepted Onqelos' work even though he was a ger or proselyte. Jonathan's specifically Messianic emphasis was one of the reasons that his translation was not accepted.

Early Messianic expectation among the Jews is also brought out by the literature known as Zohar (brilliance, brightness), which is usually associated with the name of the 2nd century Shimeon Ben Johai. This esoteric Aramaic work, thousands of pages long, based on the Pentateuch and dealing with the being of God, achieved general approval alongside the Talmud in the academies of both East and West. Although it was put into a written form only in the 8th and 9th centuries it reflects a very early tradition. It contains, for example, delineations of the Suffering Messiah, of the Trinity, and of the Messiah as the Son of God, the origins of which are difficult to trace. The Zohar can also be regarded as belonging to the Jewish 'normative' sources.

As far as our source material is concerned it makes sense also to refer to Mediaeval Jewish Bible exposition, since certain Rabbis, such as the most famous exegete of Judaism RaSHI (Shalomon Jarchi, d.1105), often leaned on the Midrashim and the Targumim for support. In the same way, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the ancient Jewish 'Wisdom' literature may give some incidental support when discussing our material.

Nowadays more and more emphasis is being laid on the fact that in both OT and NT studies these sources are indispensible. This is confirmed by recent scholars such as John Bowker, S.H. Levey, David Daube and W.D. Davies as well as the older H.L.Strack and B.Pick.10

We will find as we search for the roots of the Christian faith that we have landed on a strange, unfamiliar continent. We are nevertheless on the right track. If someone wishes to familiarise himself with Chinese thought he would do well to take a trip to the Far East. Sometimes it almost requires the skills of an undercover agent to get to the heart of the problem. However, along the way many exciting and utterly captivating observations will be made, which can only serve to strengthen the grounds of our faith.

One of the best examples illustrating the search for one's own roots is on my bookshelf. I once had the opportunity in Israel of buying, from a certain Jewish Christian's estate, a book published in Helmstadt in 1609. The author, a Jewish scholar by name of Christianum Gerson, relates how he bought for eight schillings, from an old poverty-stricken Christian woman, the New Testament in Luther's translation. With his two brothers-in-law he began to study it to find out how this "grave mistake" could possibly have conquered hundreds of thousands of hearts. The Gospel message shook him so much that he had to go on reading it alone, in secret. He compared its message with that of the OT and his own Jewish sources, and so, according to his preface, through this "written word" he came to a personal faith in Jesus.

At first his family and friends rejected him. In describing this he borrows the words of Psalm 27:10, "Though my father and mother forsake me, the LORD will receive me." Soon, however, his wife and children followed in their father's footsteps. In order to prove to his friends the grounds of his decision he wrote this 700 page treatise on the Christian faith, in which he compares the teaching of the NT and of the Talmud with each other. Although Gerson compares the roots of Christianity primarily with the OT, the hundreds of quotations from the Talmud and the dozens of references to the Midrash give the feeling of being at the roots of the Christian faith."

Luther said in his time that,"Christus universae scripturae scopus est", which freely translated runs, "Christ is the true perspective of all the scriptures".11  The whole of this "Roots" book is founded on that basis.

----------
1.     Schalom Ben-Chorin, Jüdischer Glaube, pp 17-21.
2.    See eg. M. Gertner, Midrashim in the New Testament, Addison G. wright, The Literature Genre Midrash; and I.L. Seeligmann, Voraussetzungen der Midraschexegese; cf Bibl.
3.    See eg. Wilhelm Dilthey, Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften. Ges. Werke, Band 7.
4.    Lothar bornscheuer, Topik, Zur Struktur der gesellschaftlichen Einbildungskraft, Fr am Main 1976 pp 26-7.
5.    We will quote the name in Hebrew way and follow the characterization of the introduction to his Hebrew work.
6.    Berakoth 34,b, San. 99a, San 98b.
7.    See Encyclopaedia JUDAICA. vol 11
8.    Masechet Sopherim 1.
9.     P. 518 in the Hebrew reference work of Mordechai Margalioth on the "Wise" of the Talmud
10.   John Bowker, The Targums & Rabbinic Literature. An Introduction to Jewish Interpretation of Scripture. Cambridge 1969; S.H. Levey, The Messiah, An Aramaic Interpretation. The Messianic Exegesis of the Targum. Cincinnati 1974; H.L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 1st ed. Berlin 1887; B. Pick, Old Testament Passages Messianically Applied by the Ancient Synagogue, Hebraica 1885-88
11.   Christianum Gerson, Der Juden Thalmud, Fürnembster Inhalt und Widerlegung, zum andermal gedruckt in Helmstadt 1609, 700 pp.


The next chapter "THE MESSIAH IN THE PENTATEUCH"

Back to the main page of Risto Santala's books