Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>Ian Hutchesson states, "Ideas written centuries after the time of writing
>have nothing to do with that contextualisation necessary to understand the
>text."
>____________________
>
>If this is true, then none of our posts are relevant to contextualization
>either. We are more centuries removed than was Matthew. He had just as much
>right to interpret as we, and some cultural, social, and linguistic
>advantages which we do not have (his other advantages, which you viciously
>attacked below, are off-list topics; let's have enough respect to keep them
>there). I have assumed that history of interpretation was in vogue on this
>list, as long as it is never made an end in itself (which has not been
>done).
>
>Rather than seek for the moderators to end certain discussions, my vote is
>to pursue discussion of the text (within each scholar's range of interest &
>knowledge) and seek to avoid such disappointments.


Dear Moderators, can I have a decision on this stuff?

It should be plain that there is no direct relevance of NT materials to the
analysis of the significance of OT/HB texts, nor do such materials have any
bearing on the reconstruction of the contexts of the texts written for they
can at best be related to the times in which they were written -- whenever
that was.

And what are Jewish members of the list to make of comments like

"The NT applies this in both regards in various contexts, healing of the
physical aspect having its primary purpose to demonstrate Jesus as the
Messiah and His spiritual power to heal or open eyes as well. His kingdom
was/is a spiritual kingdom, at least for now."

?


Ian