Is a Christological interpretation of the OT an honest one?

It seems that, among Hebrew Bible scholars, there is a bit of trepidation about letting New Testament scholars and theologians alike have a go at interpreting the Hebrew Bible. There seems to be a sense of injustice done to the text by the NT scholar, not letting the text "speak for itself." This happens quite a lot, but here's the post over on James Getz's blog that has sparked my question.

Certainly, Christological interpretations of the OT occur in the NT itself - but again, were the NT authors being fair in their hermeneutical practices? Were they allowing a text to speak for itself or were they ripping it out of context?

Can one have a Christological interpretation that also pays due respect to the particular OT text in its particular context, or is this having one's theological cake and eating it too?

EDIT: (10/7/08):
Douglas Mangum gives a bit more reasoning behind his answer on his blog.
Phil Sumpter responds to this overall issue on his blog (not my questions specifically, but still good answers).

A Greek Question

I was reviewing some Greek tonight and I've come across something I can't figure out : how do you write the imperfect of αμαρτανω? The issue is that the verb has both a first aorist and second aorist and the second aorist seems as if it would be the exact same as the imperfect (the 2nd aorist being ημαρτον).

The Nomina Sacra and Mary

In his book The Earliest Christian Artifacts, Larry Hurtado mentions on pg. 97 that other than the four divine nomina sacra, others began to be used in the Byzantine period. One of these NS was for ΜΗΤΗΡ (Mother, specifically in reference to Mary). I'm wondering if there's some way I could find the earliest manuscript known that uses the NS for Mary. Anyone know? (I'm looking your way, Evangelical Textual Criticism!)

A question about pedagogy

Mark Goodacre's recent post about his first day of teaching a class on the New Testament this term has brought up a question that I've asked myself so many times: how do professors separate faith from the classroom? I don't mean to ask this in the sense that I think it's impossible, I've dialogued with people about the NT numerous times without having to resort to even talking about faith or my own personal beliefs (although I'm sure it creeps through without me knowing it). Is it ever appropriate for a professor to divulge his own beliefs on the matter, though? I know if you take Bart Ehrman's NT course at the University of North Carolina, he is extremely vocal about what he thinks. Does that unnecessarily bias the students towards your belief? I think it does. The professor is such an icon in our world. He is the supposed guarantor of all knowledge in his field, an expert among experts. If he believes it, it must be true!

As someone who wants to be a professor, my idea is that I want to keep my students guessing. I want them to have zero clue where I stand on the matter because I want to have as little influence over them as possible. My big revelation over the last few years has been that there's too much indoctrination (in almost every field) in universities today. Students end up being fundamentalists, able to rattle off the professor's arguments for whatever stance. My hope for myself is that when I finally get around to teaching (sometime in the year 3056, I think) is that I'll be able to discuss Bultmann, Sanders, Wright, Black, Robinson, Tilling (oh yes, he'll be famous by then), Goodacre, etc without my students knowing which parts I agree with and which I don't. Is this sound pedagogy? Is it possible?

Your least favorite thing

I am not an Old Testament guy....at all. I mean, as a Christian I understand its importance in the grand scheme of salvation history. As a Biblical Studies major, I realize its significance both on its own and as a precursor and illuminator of the NT, as well as valuable for historical Jesus research, etc. However, I do not enjoy Hebrew. I don't enjoy trying to remember Old Testament chronology. I don't enjoy trying to pronounce those crazy names (Maher-shalal-hash-baz anyone?). I'm not particularly interested in rabbinic literature. And whereas I'm thrilled (for whatever reason) with NT Textual and Source Criticism, the idea of doing OT textual criticism bores me to tears!

Now, I'm not saying this to down people who are involved in OT studies primarily (although you are an odd bunch. Everyone knows NT studies is where it's at). That was a confession before a question. What is your least favorite aspect of Biblical Studies? I am not asking what you think is the least important (I realize how important all of the above stuff is and I read it because it is important, I just don't enjoy it), but I am asking you what you loathe...what do you dread doing despite the fact that it's necessary?

What are you praying for?

The Lord's prayer is so often prayed that I think its significance has decreased in modern Christianity. I know that I chant through it instead of honestly thinking about the implications of the words I'm saying. Something has really stood out for me in the last few months concerning the Lord's prayer, however.

Matthew 6:10

Your Kingdom come,

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven

Now, I've intentionally made the two lines italicized because I think "Your will be done" is the only thing people focus on when considering earth and heaven. But what did Jesus mean about God's kingdom coming on earth?

One thing that bothers/perplexes me is that God's kingdom is not divided or fractured in Heaven, why should it be on earth? I think the Lord's prayer has huge implications for ecclesiology. However, this is because I take God's Kingdom on earth to be his Church (contrary to both George Ladd and J. Millard Erickson). I like things to be practical and real. As such, I'm generally less inclined to follow Luther, Calvin, and even Augustine in dividing up the "visible" and "invisible" church. I want the invisible to be the visible! I like the idea of one corporate body working together. In fact, I think denominations are the inability of Christians to work through the Spirit within the community. I suppose I'm just not theologically inclined enough to see how one can pray for God's Kingdom to come on earth and be as it is in Heaven, and then remain divided from Christian brethren because that's the way things have always been. The Lord's prayer seems a bit like spiritual nonsense if we're saying to God, "Make your Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven.....but do it without me having to do anything."

So, the question is: What exactly are you praying for when you pray the Lord's prayer? Or, a more historical-critical approach: what do you suppose Jesus meant here? Is this a validation for a one Church world? Did Jesus equate God's Kingdom coming on earth as the Church?

Also, something that's well-worth a read is Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter titled Ut Unum Sint. He discusses a reunited and reconciled Church. (HT: Michael Barber)

A Question

Unfortunately, I'm not a fountain of wisdom (a la Goodacre, Tilling, Barber, Black, etc), but a burden of questions. One that has really been on my mind lately is: Did the authors of the New Testament understand that they were writing Scripture? I'll go even further...is the New Testament Scripture? Yikes! I'm sure I'll get some double-takes on that one. But, really, why should I think the New Testament is Scripture? Why can't it just be a collection of books that detail the height of God's interaction with man in history? Something I'm always weary of is idol-worship. A post I made awhile back was reposted on a German website under the title uber Bibel-Gotzenverehrung (which translates to something like "super Bible Idol worship", or something along those lines). And that pretty much sums up what I'm afraid of: worshiping something other than God. In my questioning I have in mind 1 Corinthians 15:15 where Paul says :

"Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ , whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised" (NASB)

Something I'm pretty sure of is that I don't want to be a false witness against God. So, if I say "The New Testament is inspired, inerrant, Holy Writ" and it's not true, I've sinned.

Something else that bothers me are the endings of 2 and 3 John. 2 John 1:12 and 3 John 1:14 both mention that John had much to tell the recipients of the letter, but that he would rather tell them "face to face". If I knew I was writing Scripture, I'd want to be as lengthy as possible, not missing any details. If I were aware that my writings were going to be read for thousands of years, I don't think I'd write a short letter that pretty much repeats exactly what I've already written (1 John). It seems that what he had to tell them was far more important than writing it out on some papyri (or a scroll, depending upon who you read). In other words perhaps the Gospel is more important than any of the gospels.

Two arguments I hear for the inspiration/inerrancy (not the same things, but these arguments are used for both...and naturally if they aren't inspired, they aren't inerrant):

1)Scripturally:I hear 2 Timothy 3:16 thrown around as if we can assume that Paul had the NT mind. He may have it in mind, but I need more proof than just citing the verse. 2 Timothy would've been written when some of the books of the NT had not yet been written. How do we explain that? Another argument from Scripture is the use of 2 Peter 3:16. This is a bit more convincing that at least some of Paul's letters are Scripture, in Peter's view. However, which ones? Are we sure we have all the letters? I'm not conspiring here, I just mean that Paul's epistles are occasional and sometimes personal, so can we be sure that we have them all?

2)Historically: A great many contemporary scholars will disagree with me here, but...I believe that there were atleast some churches (perhaps Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Oxyrhynchus) that had complete copies of the NT as we have it by the end of the first century/very early in the 2nd century. Most people who appeal for the canonicity will appeal to the historical understanding of the canon from the early church. But, just because historically someone did something doesn't make it right. In other words, like N.T. Wright mentions in The New Testament and the People of God, we shouldn't immediately assume that the early church is normative for all of Christianity. An appeal to the earliest understanding may not be the right way to go. Perhaps they were mistaken. Perhaps they needed their book to be Scripture too (compared to the OT).

So, if you've made it all the way through this post, you may think me a heretic. Quite alright. Whether you think I'm a heretic or not, I want you to suggest some reading. The overall question is: Why should I think the New Testament is Scripture?