The seminal questions, which resound from this study, are - in no particular order - first, whether or not early Palestinian Jewish hermeneutical methods are evident in a second Testament context. Second, whether or not these methods can, and should, therefore be applied in the interpretation of Scripture subsequent to the times of early Christianity and into this day and age. Third, whether Christian, and Jewish, eschatological history reflects any of these convictions and, fourth, whether or not the hermeneutical methods engaged by the so-called PopuJarisers sustain their eschatological convictions.
It has been argued herein(infra,pp.74-1 DO) that abundant evidence is available from the Second Testament to support the contention that the exegetical practices of early Judaism were utilised by Jesus and the apostolic writers.
Constraints of space restricted the study to an examination of only some of the examples found in the teachings of Jesus and in the writings of the Apostles Matthew, Mark, Peter, James and Paul. From this examination it became manifest that the use of early rabbinic exegetical tools such aspeshat, midrash - with a focus on haggaeJah rather than halakah - and Hillel's middoth, was common in the second Testament context. Furthermore, a typical Qumranic implementation ofraz-pesherwaswidespread in this context It is submitted that such findings are consistent with the realisation that the Bible is a Jewish document, compiled within the early Palestinian Judaic milieu and reflecting an existing tradition. Proof of the existence of such tradition arises from the fact that the tradition must have been extant in order to be redacted. The redaction resulted in a record of, inter alia, the interpretative heritage of the nascent Church. In the result, the clear and widespread application in the Second Testament of traditional hermeneutical methods can serve not only as a justification for the use thereof by subsequent Bible exegetes, but as a forceful precedent which if ignored or repudiated will undoubtedly lead to a mere superficial comprehension of weighty Biblical issues or, possibly, even non- biblical views. Presented with evidence of Second Testament application of
traditional early Jewish exegetical practices, the onus must surely shift to the modem scholar to demonstrate why the methods employed by Jesus and the
,
ApostorlC writers are not pertinent to modem biblical interpretation. All the same, there appear to be few Christian scholars who can provide valid reasons for failing to use the traditional hermeneutical methods employed in the Second Testament context.
An example of this contention is R.N. Longenecker, who in his work, "Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period", provides substantial evidence of Second Testament use of early Jewish hermeneutical methodologies. Longenecker concludes that "the exegesis of the New Testament is heavily dependent on Jewish procedural precedents" (1999, p.187). Evidence for this is derived through the patent use by the earliest Christians of the "many exegetical conventions that were common within various branches of Judaism in their day".
Longenecker also points out that the Apostolic writers felt free to use such conventions because "they looked to Jesus' useofScripture as the source and paradigm for their own use" (1999, p.187). It is therefore quite incongruous to notethatLongenecker, in his conclusion. remains firmly committed to "historico- grammatical exegesis" alone. his rationale being that "our commitment as Christians is to the reproduction ofthe apostolic faith and doctrine, and not necessarily to the specific apostolic exegetical practices" (1999. p.198). The obvious inconsistency of this view is that it was only through the application of the early Jewish hermeneutical practices engaged by Jesus and the Second Testament writers. as amply testified to by Longenecker himself, that the Christian"faithand doctrine" as set out in the Second Testament, was deduced and redacted.
Yet again, it is not totally unexpected to have to distinguish the usual Christian approach, exemplified byLongenecker in his concluding remarks, with the hermeneutical approaches propounded by Jewish scholars. of both Orthodox and Messianic persuasions. In a paper presented at the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, Jewish scholar. A. Berlin, astutely
observed that "for most of the twentieth century, traditional Jewish exegesis has had little or no place in academic biblical scholarship because it did not appear
.
to contribute tothe scientific understanding of the Bible" (Berlin, 1997. p.173).
This is precisely the point since Christian scholars, in their preoccupation with a scientific approach to biblical exegesis - perhaps a form of nee-scholasticism - have ignored not only the hermeneutical techniques of the nascent Church, but also the Church's Jewish heritage. A reason for this, according to Berlin. is that the"modem academic study of the Bible has been largely a Christian enterprise"
(1997, p.174). Berlin's reason has many implications and added thereto can be anti-Semitic and anti-Judaic attitudes by Christian scholars. whether conscious or not In fairness, though, it can be agreed with Berlin that "by the middle of the twentieth century the slighting of traditional Jewish exegesis was noLas much a result of prejudice as of ignorance" (1997. p.174). Such ignorance often amounted to a conscious rejection of any method that, in the opinion of scholars.
was
not scientific enough in approach and which did not employ the most recent scientific information and methodologies. Berlin is not surprised by this rejection since "traditional Jewish exegesis made no pretence of being academically objective and religiously neutral" and, thus, such an exegetical approach was quite unsuitable in "the eyes of modem scientific scholars" (1997, p.175). Berlin sums up by postulating that "all of these factors - the ignorance of traditional Jewish exegesis, theirrelevance of it, and the psychological discomfort with it - acted in tandem to reduce or eliminate the presence of traditional Jewish exegesis from the academic study ofthe Bible" (1997, p.176). These are unpalatable. butnecessary.truths requiring consideration by Christian scholars.It is not onlytheJewish scholars who allege that Christians have regarded early Jewish exegesis as redundant as Rendtorff. a Christian himself, in his address to the Eight World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, also admits that
"Modem Christian biblical scholarship has almost totally ignored the very existence of Jewish exegetical tradition" (1993, p.17). This situation. Rendtorff observes, is "the case even today" since the "vast majority of Christian biblical scholars have never so much as glanced at a rabbinic text" (1993, p.18). Like
Berlin, who asserts that the history of biblical interpretation does not appear to be of major importance for Christian scholars (Berlin, 1997, p.175) insofar as
.
continuity and implementation thereof is concerned, Rendtorff opines that the attitude of Christian scholars is, by and large, such that they "proceed as if the interpretation oftheBible had begun only in the nineteenth or at best eighteenth century". Rendtorff adds that these scholars take little cognisance of the
"continuity of biblical tradition" (1993, p.18), which tradition was reinforced by Jesus and the Apostolic writers. Consequently, the question posed by Jewish scholar, C. J. Reif, namely, "whether all that is modern is necessarily more scholarly than the learning that precedes it" (1998, p.155), demands some serious reflection in view of the predominant Christian attitude to traditional Jewish exegetical methods.
Rendtorff proposes that the use of traditional Jewish exegetical methods by Christian scholarsatthis time would have more effect if "demonstrably useable results" could be established (1993, p.21). There is much sense in this proposition for should the evident use of early Jewish hermeneutical practices by Jesus and the apostolic redactors not be regarded as constituting sufficient justification for implementing such practices inthepresent era, then evidence of
"useable results" arising from currentapplication of such techniques must surely be persuasive. Applying this proposition to the eschatological scenarios promoted by Popularisers, it can be said that the grammatical-historical method relied upon by themtosupport their interpretation of relevant prophetic texts and events, has been shown to be rather inadequate, in certain issues, for such purpose(supra, pp.17Q-187). However, through the use of traditional Jewish exegetical tools lik.e peshat,pesher, haggadah, and various middoth of Hillel, the Popularisers' berJefin issues like a pre-tribulational Rapture, the Messianic age, end-time wars and tribulation, have received some credibility. In such circumstance,atleast,·useable results" have been established. But it is not only the practical benefit of Jewish methods that should justify the implementation of these interpretative tools as the prime reason is, without doubt, the consistent