[XTalk] Re: Prophecy Historicized
- As a matter of fact, Jeffrey, I have read Dodd's little book on the
old in the new. But I still believe that finding the old in the new
is not as simple as you would have us to believe, for if it were,
then we would be much more in agreement on the genre of the gospels.
It is a difficult task to discern NT allusions made to OT stories
when they are cited by the NT authors. Indeed, even to know when an
allusion has occurred can throw the best of us off track.
You continue to state "how narrow the OT field mined by NT authors
actually was" and state that this "has not been fundamentally
disputed". I continue to disagree with you. I think it has been
argued (whether or not successfully depends on which camp you reside
in) how the majority of the gospel stories are re-tellings of the OT
in the light of Jesus Christ, re-tellings that draw from a myriad of
OT source material. Much of the source material that comes from the
OT has not yet been uncovered. So how can you limit the NT writers
sources when you don't even know what they are yet?
--- In crosstalk2@y..., "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@h...> wrote:
> Matthew Estrada wrote:
> > Jeffrey stated:
> > "I wonder how much you are taking into account C.H.
> > Dodd's work on (a) the fact that the OT texts that are
> > alluded to in the Gospels as well as throughout the NT
> > are, quite contrary to what we might expect given
> > certain models of how and why the OT was used in the
> > NT, come only from a fairly narrow set of texts
> > and(b) that there seems to have been in operation a
> > well established criteria for viewing which OT texts
> > were or were not appropriate as passages to which NT
> > authors might appeal in any kind of "fulfillment
> > scheme"?"
> > I guess I believe that we've only just begun to
> > uncover the method and the texts that the NT writers
> > used in applying OT passages to Christ, therefore a)to
> > say that the OT texts that are alluded to in the NT
> > come from a fairly narrow set of texts seems
> > premature, doesn't it? This, in turn, prevents us from
> > b) recognizing, at this point, any established
> > criteria that the early church might have used for
> > viewing which OT texts were or were not appropiate for
> > their fulfillment scheme.
> Why you think identifying OT texts quoted or alluded to in the NT
> new, let alone a difficult task, is beyond me. In any case, I
> urge you to read Dodd's little work, _The Old Testament in the New_
> (with which, I take it, you are not familiar) as well as his
> to the Scriptures_ to see how he went about identifying what he
> call "the substratum of NT theology". So far as I know, his
> about what OT texts are to be found in the NT, as well as how
> OT field mined by NT authors actually was (Dodd's work was carried
> in opposition to the idea of "testimony books" made popular by R.
> Harris) has not been fundamentally disputed.
> You might also want to have a look at Barnabas Lindars' _New
> Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
> 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
> Chicago, Illinois 60626
> e-mail jgibson000@h...
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On 28 Jun 2001, at 22:34, Ken Olson wrote:
> OK, Mark, I have to ask: when you were consulted on that Jesus imageThanks for making me smile. I deny all responsibility for the
> [still available at
> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-105319,00.html%5d were you
> assuming that Tertullian wasn't just historicizing Isaiah 53 but that
> there must be some historical kernel to Tertullian's claim that Jesus
> was ugly? (;[See _On the Flesh of Christ_, 9.136-139; available online
> at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-39.htm#P9237_2537879%5d
ugliness of that face; and as the programme pointed out, I was
asked in to "give it a make-over".
Thanks for the other useful comments on this thread -- I'll come
back to them soon.
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
Birmingham B15 2TT
The New Testament Gateway