Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Bookmark and Share

« FREE Copies of Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek! | Main | You Do Not Receive Our Testimony (Monday with Mounce 7) by Bill Mounce »

Comments

I'm very fascinated to read this book, as I've always wondered myself about the NT authors' use of the OT. How far into the future could they see? When the NT authors applied OT texts to Jesus, was this based on the original intentions of the OT authors, or did the Holy Spirit reveal to these NT authors His divine transcendent plan. Interesting stuff that I do not fully understand; I'm looking forward to learning more!

I came out Single Meaning, Unified Referents. I am now intrigued.

For several questions of this quiz there did not seem to be an adequate answer (at least according to the way I would answer those questions) . . . I guess that is the way it goes in hermeneutics, is it not? ;-)

Even though I came out Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents, IMHO, I'm not sure we can determine which of the (3) Views is correct. No doubt, I think at least we're all intrigued and fascinated! Now this is going to be on my mind a lot!

Even though I came out Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents, IMHO, I'm not sure we can determine which of the (3) Views is correct. No doubt, I think at least we're all intrigued and fascinated! Now this is going to be on my mind a lot!

Even though I came out Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents, IMHO, I'm not sure we can determine which of the (3) Views is correct. No doubt, I think at least we're all intrigued and fascinated! Now this is going to be on my mind a lot!

I came out with the Fuller meaning, Single goal view. I'm amazed that's 45% I had always thought that was a small minority view. Thanks for the quiz and the reference to Peter Enns.

Fuller meaning, Single goal view

"this quiz reveals your view of how the NT authors understood and used the OT in their writings" no it doesn't - the answers were inadequate, merely representing the views of three evangelical? scholars.

The answer I keep looking for but not seeing seems to be a fourth view entirely (or rather a fourth possibility for some ways the NT uses the OT). An OT passage is specifically about an OT incident, and the NT author applies the general principle behind the OT passage. The Hosea 11 question allows for this with its middle choice, since it's worded more vaguely, just saying that Matthew's application is consistent with Hosea's words. Of course it's consistent, but that doesn't distinguish between my view and the one I find in the other questions where my view doesn't appear.

For example, the Psalm 16 question gives the possibility that Peter is ok using the text because of a "conviction that all the scriptures point to Jesus". This is much too imprecise. I could apply anything to Jesus in any way if that's the only criterion. But does that mean the divine inspiration meant the specific words of David to refer to Jesus as well? As Carson would say, "not in the first instance". It refers to David. It's just that David as a person refers to Christ, and thus many things divinely engineered in David's life also point to Christ. Peter applies it to Christ because he is David's greater Son, not because the line in the psalm has the meaning within it in its psalmic use that it's also about Jesus. It's not so much that the scriptures generally refer to Jesus or that the verse in question specifically refers to Jesus. It's that David himself refers to Jesus.

So my view of that verse just isn't among the options, and as far as I can tell it's a pretty common view. I've seen it in the writings of quite a number of evangelical biblical scholars, and it would be nice if it were represented here. I'm sure my view is closer to Bock's than to Kaiser's or Enns's, but I wouldn't word it anything like the way the quiz does. Perhaps Bock himself is more careful if he really has this view, or maybe my view is just a fourth view.

I agree with Jeremy, here. There are places where Jesus is recapitulating the life of Israel or acting as the Second Adam. In such places, I don't think we need to say the original author had Jesus in mind during the writing. But many questions on the quiz tried to locate the "meaning" in the original author's thoughts. For the verse to be "about" Jesus, the original author had to be picturing Jesus during the writing. My own view of inspiration does not entail anything like this.

Jeremy, thanks so much for taking the quiz! As you yourself noted, it sounds to us like you are presently more aligned with the position labeled in our book as Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents, the view defended by Darrell Bock. You are also correct in noting that not every possible position (actually sub-position) is represented on the quiz you took. The topic of how the NT authors employ the OT is very complicated, and there are dozens of possible nuanced positions under each of the five central questions that are addressed in the book, thus allowing for hundreds of total possible "positions." But within evangelicalism, we have identified three main approaches to the central questions concerning the use of the OT in the New, and each of these streams is represented by one of our authors. If we have read Carson correctly--and one of us actually studied with him--Carson is roughly in the category of the position defended by Bock in our book, even though there are numerous specific instances where Carson and Bock would differ from one another. And be sure that when you read the book, you will find Bock's position (and the positions of Kaiser and Enns) to be far more nuanced than are the one sentence snippets that appear on this quiz!

Ken Berding and Jon Lunde, editors of Three View on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

Actually, i think Jimbo S scored "Single Message, Multiple Posts"

;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

About

Categories

Koinoniablog.net Analytics

  • :