Historical Critical Interpretation Reveals Christian Distortion of the Old Testament
Gerd Lüdemann has an op-ed at The Bible and Interpretation website pointing out one of the obvious benefits of the historical critical method. That is, the historical critical method exposed a quite prevalent claim of New Testament and other early Christian writers – that the Old Testament predicted or prophesied or otherwise pointed to Jesus of Nazareth – to be a false claim.
It struck me that, in the current trend to dismiss the historical critical method, which often amounts to little more than a pooh-poohing, sometimes the dramatic ways in which hist-crit in fact increased knowledge have been swept under the carpet by the mystifying broom of theological obscurantism.
Sure, the historical critical method doesn’t do everything; but what it does do, it does well.
“… it must be clear that the christological interpretation of scripture practiced by the churches for two millennia is as anachronistic as the Ptolemaic model of the universe, and that early Christians distorted many Old Testament texts to make them point to Christ. Yet more troubling is the fact that while their over-zealousness may be excused on the grounds of ignorance, many today similarly misuse the scriptures to perpetuate an ancient hoax.
Having eaten from the tree of historical knowledge, we are no longer able to take seriously an interpretation of the Old Testament that leads to Christ. All glory, laud, and honor to the founders of historical criticism for liberating us from the christological madhouse.”
(Gerd Lüdemann, ‘Liberated from the Christological Madhouse’, The Bible and Interpretation)
The Dunedin School
Eric Repphun
Deane Galbraith
Gillian Townsley
Gavin Rumney
Elizabeth Young
stephanie louise fisher
James Harding
Will Sweetman
Alan Smithee
wow. I went and read the original post. This is what happens when we ignore scripture – which tells us that the Old Testament can be read in light of the mystery of Christ, in fact that the Old Testament points to Jesus…..
We see in all the Gospels, in Acts, and in Paul’s writing that the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ:
Matthew 2:4-5
4When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5″In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written
Mark 1:2
It is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”
Luke 18:31
Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled.
John 1:44-45
44Philip, like Andrew and Peter, was from the town of Bethsaida. 45Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”
John 5:39
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
Acts 4:18-26
18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.’ 24 “Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. 25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’[c] 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”
Romans 16:24-28
25Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, 26but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him— 27to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.
Galatians 3:16
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.
So either the author is saying the historical critical method should trump scripture, or the New Testament is not scripture.
“… the Old Testament can be read in light of the mystery of Christ, in fact that the Old Testament points to Jesus…”
I quite agree. If you read the Old Testament in light of Christ, you will find that it points to Jesus.
In fact, if you read Little Red Riding Hood in light of Christ, you will find that it points to Jesus. Funny that.
Funny that. I always thought Little Red Riding Hood pointed to Vishnu, but it looks like I’m wrong about that one.
It points to Jesus.
It must.
Only if you read Little Red Riding Hood through a Vishnuological lens does it point to Vishnu. But through a Christological lens, it points, quite irrefutably, to Christ.
Only because Shiva wills it so.
“In fact, if you read Little Red Riding Hood in light of Christ, you will find that it points to Jesus. Funny that.”
Have you put this hypothesis to the test – or is it a wild unwarranted claim? The claim that “the Old Testament points to Jesus” has been pretty firmly established.
If your (sarcastic) claim turned out to be true – that is you really could find as many correlations in a random bit of literature – then you would have a point. Otherwise…
Yes, I have put this hypothesis to the test. My empirical results show that increasing the Christological colouring-level of one’s interpretative lens is inversely related to understanding the meaning of any text not already about Christ. I have surveyed a range of literature with a ‘high-coloured’ Christological lens, and have found ‘types of Christ’ in literature as varied as Machiavelli’s The Prince, Church Palahniuk’s Fight Club, Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, and Sun Tzu’s Art of War, many of which exceed the ratio found in the Old Testament : New Testament comparison. These results are pending publication.
It sounds like your study really does show that if you look hard enough for something you have a need to believe is there – you *will* find it.
Sounds very interesting.
that’s how they found “Q”. They believed it was there and lo and behold, they found it, complete with theological unity, patterns, catchwords, themes and community – a single written Greek document preserved just like they thought, hoped and wished for. Ah, life is so simple.
I don’t think “distortion” is the correct word for applying a Christian template to the Old Testament. Jesus and the Apostles established a new faith, it’s true, and challenged the emphases of some Hebrew traditions, but I seriously doubt that Messianic passages in the OT were systematically or intentionally distorted. Are you going to post some evidence of this claim?
Ropata – Gerd Lüdemann uses the term ‘distorted’ in his article, in which he also gives brief examples.
The term ‘Messianic’ does not apply to any passages in the Old Testament, if by it you mean to refer to an end-times figure such as Christ. For the Old Testament does not mention a Messiah (and this includes the 39 passages in which a ‘messiah’ is mentioned). However, the New Testament certainly does refer to a Messiah/Christ and also finds references to the Messiah/Christ (although not by that term) in the Old Testament. I don’t see how the term ‘distortion’ is inapplicable to this process, so Lüdemann is correct. You may prefer ‘reinterpretation’ or ‘changing the meaning of’, perhaps?
Just nit-picking. But can Christians ever distort the “Old Testament”. Perhaps they can distort the Hebrew scriptures… but if “Old Testament” is a Christian term used to refer to the set of texts which are always attached to the NT then ….
Right. The naming “Old Testament” is already a distortion. And if this is already the case, interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament would be not a distortion, but a… torsion.
So do you think Christianity is unique in this way? Or are ALL interpretations of the Hebrew texts “distortions” in the same way – including later Jewish interpretations, and indeed modern secular interpretations. I guess I am asking if you think Christianity is a *particularly* gross “distortion”