Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Chris M. M. Brady" <christian.brady AT tulane.edu>]

on 10/29/99 8:28 PM, jim west (jwest AT Highland.Net) had this to say:

> typological interpretation of the OT is nothing less than sheer eisegesis
> which never allows the text to be heard.  it is the crudest sort of muzzling
> of the text in fact.  summa summarum, typology is anti-biblical.

And then 
on 10/31/99 9:17 AM, jim west (jwest AT highland.net) had this to say:

> You have confused typology - which is the act of finding OT prototypes for 
> NT
> events or ideas- for inner biblical interpretation.  One is intertestamental
> and the other is intratestamental.

Without wading too deeply into this discussion I did want to make a comment.
I would have to agree with John Bailey that Jim's definition seems too
restrictive. For example, does this mean that typology can only occur within
the New Testament? What about in other works of literature?

And I am unclear on Jim's statement that is "anti-biblical."

First of all the term "anti-biblical" must be defined.

Secondly the second quote above seems to suggest that "typology" (or
something like typology, John's example of Abram going to Egypt and Israel's
time in Egypt)  WITHIN the Hebrew Bible is legitimate. If we accept there is
intertestamental typology (can we include the example of Elijah in the
wilderness as  a type of Moses?) then how is it "anti-biblical?

Just a few thoughts and happy to take it off list if we have gone too far
astray.

Cb
-- 
C h r i s   M   M    B r a d y
Director * Jewish Studies * Tulane University
                   
http://www.tulane.edu/~jwst/
christian.brady AT tulane.edu