From David Waltz:
(Hopefully, they [Bridges, Hays] have been able to move past their Catholic serial killer mentality).
Hopefully Waltz has moved beyond projecting his own opinions onto us and then shifting the burden of proof.
Bridges seems to justify his stance with the points made earlier in a., b., and c.; he then recommends that I “take a gander at Carson and Beale”. Fair enough, so this morning I turned to Beale, who wrote:
"The conclusion of those who see the New Testament use of the Old Testament as non-contextual is that twentieth-century Christians should not attempt to reproduce the exegetical method of the New Testament writers, except when it corresponds to our grammitical-historical method…But it is not necessary to claim that we have to have such inspiration to reproduce their method or their conclusions. The fact that we don’t have the same “revelatory stance” as the New Testament writers only means that we cannot have the same epistemological certainty about our interpretative conclusions and applications as they did. Exegetical method should not be confused with certainty about the conclusions of such method, since the two are quite distinct." (G.K. Beale, “Positive Answer To the Question”, in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed. G.K. Beale, p. 399.)
Amen Dr. Beale! I am truly left wondering if Bridges and Hays have actually read one of the authors they recommended…
Unfortunately for Waltz, the poor guy suffers from basic reading incomprehension.
In the first section which David quotes, Beale is summarizing a position in order to then oppose said position in the second section which David quotes.
Beale doesn’t take the position that the NT writers quote the OT out of context. He doesn’t take the position that modern exegetes should avoid reproducing apostolic exegesis except where it corresponds to grammatico-historical exegesis (on the assumption that the two are characteristically in conflict).
That’s the opposing position. The position that Beale is going to criticize. Beale is summarizing a particular view of apostolic exegesis as a set up to then critique that particular view of apostolic exegesis.
As he goes on to explain, he thinks this evaluation fails to distinguish between exegetical method and exegetical certainly.
Since a modern exegete is uninspired and therefore fallible, he cannot reproduce the certainty of Apostolic interpretations. But that doesn’t mean he cannot or should not reproduce their methods.
Waltz is a very careless reader. It isn’t difficult to distinguish Beale’s position from the opposing position—even in the section he quoted. Let’s consider some of Beale’s other statements in the same chapter.
He says the NT interpretation of the OT “does not contravene the integrity of the earlier texts but rather develops them in a way which is consistent with the Old Testament author’s understanding of the way in which God interacts with his people—which is the unifying factor between the Testaments “ (393).
“Put another way, it [typology] does not read into the text a different or higher sense, but draws out from it a different or higher application of the same sense” (395, emphasis his).
“In the light of our overall discussion, the proposal of many that the New Testament’s exegetical approach to the Old Testament is characteristically non-contextual is a substantial overstatement…I remain convinced that once the hermeneutical and theological presuppositions of the New Testament writers are considered, there are no clear examples where they have developed a meaning from the Old Testament which is inconsistent or contradictory to some aspect of the original Old Testament intention” (398).
“I am prepared to accept the possibility of non-contextual, Jewish ad hominem argumentation used polemically by New Testament writers, although I am unconvinced that this occurs anywhere in the New Testament. If it did occur, it might best be understood as the author’s intention not to exegete the Old Testament but to beat the Jews at their own game (402-03).
“Thus, I believe a positive answer can and must be given to the question, ‘Can we reproduce the exegesis of the New Testament?’” (404).
There’s no point in Waltz owning 15,000 books when his level of reading comprehension is so deficient.