HomeGroupsTalkMoreZeitgeist
Search Site
This site uses cookies to deliver our services, improve performance, for analytics, and (if not signed in) for advertising. By using LibraryThing you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Your use of the site and services is subject to these policies and terms.

Results from Google Books

Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.

The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation,…
Loading...

The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation (edition 2009)

by John H. Sailhamer

MembersReviewsPopularityAverage ratingMentions
388265,018 (4.1)1
John Sailhamer sums up his perspective on the Pentateuch by first settling the hermeneutical question of where we should set our attention. Rather than focus on the history behind the text, Sailhamer is convinced that it is the text itself that should be our primary focus. Along the way he demonstrates that this was in fact the focus of many interpreters in the precritical era. --from publisher description… (more)
Member:tommi.k.karjalainen
Title:The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation
Authors:John H. Sailhamer
Info:IVP Academic (2009), Paperback, 632 pages
Collections:Old Testament, Your library
Rating:*****
Tags:Theology, Old Testament

Work Information

The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation by John H. Sailhamer

Loading...

Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book.

No current Talk conversations about this book.

» See also 1 mention

Showing 2 of 2
Hoofdstuk 8 uit The meaning of the Pentateuch 29 augustus 2013

Belofte-theologie:
-OT staat voor belofte, NT voor vervulling
-woord promise is Zusage, Verheissung, Weissagung
-als het gaat over de eenheid van OT en NT zijn er problemen aan het gebruik van het woord promise, want wie het OT ziet als belofte en NT als vervulling, degradeert net OT naar een lager plan

De terminologie van belofte en vervulling verraadt geen neutraal uitgangspunt voor bijbelse theologie. Het bepaalt de waarde van de een tegenover die van de ander, namelijk onvervuld tegenover vervuld. Lastig is dan wel dat in het NT terug verwezen wordt naar het OT als belofte.

Het OT heeft geen woord voor het NT-inschepen idee van belofte. Is belofte geen belangrijk thema in doet OT? PS in het NT kom je een equivalent voor het idee belofte tegen. Is het thema niet belangrijk genoeg om belofte terminologie te hebben?
Hoewel de termen verbond en zegen niet te identificeren zijn met het NT-ische idee van belofte, toch dragen beide woorden veel semantisch gewicht in zich.
Verder moet gevraagd worden of het OT-ische idee van belofte gelijk is aan de NT-ische terminologie.

Het NT-ische thema van belofte en vervulling zie je ook terug in het OT. Zijn er beloften die in het OT al vervuld zijn? Het OT-ische idee van belofte moet niet vanuit het NT ingevuld worden. Het OT heeft een concept van belofte, maar niet zoals het NT dat heeft. Het OT heeft verschillende en termen om aan het concept belofte uitdrukking te geven.
Sterker nog, het kan wel eens zijn dat het NT terminologie uit het OT gebruikt om uitdrukking te geven aan het eigen NT-ische concept van belofte. Wat in de terminologie van het NT-ische zorgt ervoor dat de terminologie van het NT (epangellia) hetzelfde is? Concreet: zagen de profeten hun tijd als de vervulling van een belofte?

Kortom, het woord belofte moet in beide testamenten op zichzelf worden beschouwd.

Theologen die het woord belofte als centraal uitgangspunt in het bijbelse theologie hebben, zijn Geerhardus Vos en Walter Kaiser.

Belofte als Weissagung and Verheissung
Semantisch zijn er overeenkomsten tussen de OT-ische en de NT-ische typen van belofte.het doel van de NT-ische is dat die vervuld wordt in de toekomst, die van het OT dat die geactualiseerd in het heden. De link tussen die beide ligt in de notie van 'actualiseren' van het verbond. Het maken van een verbond is geen belofte voor de toekomst maar actuele werkelijkheid in het leven van de partners. Het verbond is een actualisering van een commitment: Ik zal jullie God zijn en jullie zullen mijn volk zijn.
Het OT-ische concept van belofte als Weissaging (profetie) is een statement die verworteld is in een goddelijke belofte met betrekking tot de toekomst, Verheissung. De vervulling van die belofte is geen toekomstig iets, maar is actueel. Het is ook geen verzekering van een toekomstig relatie.

Verbondszegen
Centraal in de theologische formatie van de Pentateuch is het profetische woord gesproken aan Abraham, Gen 15,1. Het profetische woord is een belofte. God belooft in Gen 12-50. Gen 22,18, in jouw zaad zullen alle volken gezegend zijn. Hoewel het woord belofte niet gebruikt wordt, het is wel een belofte. Daarom wordt Christus gezien als de vervulling van de OT-ische profetie als belofte.
Belofte als iets dat vervuld moet worden (NT) is ook een belangrijk onderdeel van de verbondsbelofte aan Abraham. Als God tegen Abraham zegt: Ik zal je God zijn, is dat een goddelijke verzekering van actuele nabijheid. De OT-ische visie van belofte is dat God zichzelf commiteert aan Abraham als helper, verzorger en beschermer, de drie aspecten van het OT-ische idee van verbond. Daarom ligt in belofte teksten ihet OT de nadruk op verbond. 'Covenant denotes relationship.' De belofte is een 'present experience rather than a future hope'.
In het OT is vervulling niet alleen iets wat gerealiseerd moet worden, maar het is ook reeds ontvangen zegen, zie Hebr 11,1.11.13. Het profetische woord aan Abraham gegeven is een uitdrukking van commitment, en daarom is het te smal om een OT-ische uitdrukking als belofte alleen vanuit het NT te zien met het oog op vervulling. Het NT ziet het commitment van God als als een belofte die vervuld is in Christus, hoewel die belofte in het OT niet herkend is als belofte, maar werd wel tot uitdrukking als zodanig gebracht onder de term verbond.
In Gen 15 zie je het sterkst wat de aard en doel van het abrahamitisch verbond en zegen is.verbondsbelofte is tweeledig: belofte vanuit het NT bezien is een belofte die vervuld is in Christus of die nog vervuld moet worden, maar die vervulling was niet de enige focus in het OT. 2, gezien vanuit OT is de verbondsbelofte een relatie die tot stand gebracht is op basis van een gesloten verbond.

De klassieke visie op profetie is dat het uitspraken zijn over toekomstige gebeurtenissen of personen. In Gen 22,18 vind je het woord zaad van Abraham. In Gal 3,16 komt diezelfde term voor, en die nakomeling is Christus. Dit individuele zaad van Abraham is de basis van al Gods beloften aan Abraham. Dit impliceert dat Christus de de goddelijke belofte van zegen medieert. Het is mogelijk dat Paulus' argument gebaseerd is op het woord zaad als enkelvoud. Hoewel het Hebreeuwse woorden vaak meervoud aanduidt, het woord kan ook enkelvoud betekenen.

[Verbondszegen in Genesis 15]

Profiel van Verbondszegen in de Pentateuch: verdeling van het woord berit is opvallend gelijk aan dat van het woord brk (zegen).
  gerwin | Aug 29, 2013 |
Few 600 page books on theology are intended to help the average Bible student as much as the learned theologian. Even fewer succeed in that aim. But I figured something was special about this book when John Piper encouraged everyone who cared about “meaning” to get this book, because it will “rock your world”. Rock my world, it did! And more.

I can’t claim this book is an easy read. I had to work my way through parts of it. But the effort was worth it. Sprinkled throughout the book are the kinds of takeaways that can truly change one’s life. John Sailhamer unpacks the meaning of texts and shows the relationship between various parts of the Old Testament. I came away with an enhanced understanding of OT Scripture and a greater appreciation for the unity of the testaments. In the following review, I will walk through the book, then I’ll focus on Sailhamer’s emphasis on authorial intent, the final shape of the canon, the poems of the Pentateuch and some of his conclusions about the meaning of the Pentateuch.

The book begins with a 46-page introduction setting the stage for what will be covered. The scope of what Sailhamer sets out to accomplish with this book is impressive. He is all about “meaning”, and showing us how we can go about finding the meaning of something as large as the first five books of the Bible – considered as one cohesive unit, the Pentateuch. Along the way, he offers thoughts on OT theology, and traces a history of biblical interpretation. This sets the stage for his discussions of authorial intent, verbal meaning, and the place of “historical meaning” in biblical texts. Ultimately he is pushing toward discovering the “big idea” of the Pentateuch, as expressed by the biblical author.

Once he introduces us to his stress on finding the author’s intent in the final shape of the canonical Pentateuch, he goes about doing fantastic exegesis of the Pentateuch itself. He explores how the Pentateuch was put together and composed, and shows how poetry frames the Pentateuch, offering textual clues to finding the author’s emphasis. He then goes on to trace several themes in the Pentateuch, finding corroboration in how the prophets and later authors of Scripture themselves interpreted Moses’ foundational books. That’s the book in a nutshell, but there’s so much more that could be said about it!

Sailhamer sees incredible importance in finding the author of the Pentateuch’s intent. He sees both conservative and liberal theologians as having erred in focusing too much on the questions of historicity. To this point, Sailhamer explains:

"The Pentateuch may be compared to a Rembrandt painting of real persons or events. We do not understand a Rembrandt painting by taking a photography of the “thing” that Rembrandt painted and comparing it with the painting itself. That may help us understand the “thing” that Rembrandt painted, his subject matter, but it will not help us understand the painting itself. To understand Rembrandt’s painting, we must look at it and see its colors, shapes and textures. In the same way, to understand the Pentateuch, one must look at its colors, contours and textures." (pg. 19)

Sailhamer’s history of biblical interpretation focuses on the increased attention paid to the historical background to the OT text. There was an attack on the historicity of Scripture, and Sailhamer acknowledges the apologetic value of historical studies. But they have served to distract OT scholars from their real mission. “Filling in the biblical narratives with additional historical material may teach us things about the events of which the biblical writers were speaking, but the evangelical’s goal in interpretation and biblical theology is not an understanding of those events as such. The goal, as evangelicals must see it, is the biblical author’s understanding of those events in the inspired text of the Bible (OT).” (pg. 104)

Questions of authorial intent, when it comes to the Pentateuch, inevitably run into the various source theories. This is where Sailhamer parts course and advocates a “compositional approach”. Some have read Sailhamer and conclude he rejects a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, my understanding is different. I’ll let Sailhamer explain at some length.

"…an evangelical compositional approach to biblical authorship identifies Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and seeks to uncover his strategy in putting the book together…. As far as we know, the Mosaic Pentateuch is identical with the canonical Pentateuch with only few exceptions…. Two notable examples are the account of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 and Moses’ final words in Deuteronomy 33. Such comments, though possibly spoken by Moses, were added late in Israel’s history, likely as part of a “new edition” of the Pentateuch (“Pentateuch 2.0,” in the lingo of today’s computer world). Contrary to the prevailing view of biblical authorship, both critical and evangelical, the compositional approach suggests that the Pentateuch was not the product of a long and complicated process of literary growth, but comes to us more or less as an updated edition of a single earlier Mosaic composition. The present canonical Pentateuch is thus an updated version of the Mosaic Pentateuch produced, perhaps, by the “author” of the OT as a whole (Tanak)." (pg. 48)

Such a focus on the “final shape” of the canonical Pentateuch is best suited to a vigorous pursuit of the author’s intended meaning given to us through the text. To that end, Sailhamer sees an importance in the poems which frame the narrative sections of the Pentateuch. Gen. 49, Ex. 15, Numb. 23-24, and Deut. 32-33 are all large poems which function as a frame for the stage upon which the narratives of the Pentateuch are played out. These and other poems in the Pentateuch “serve a didactic purpose without being didactic.” Sailhamer explains further:

"They are intended as commentary, although, being poetry, what they add to the narrative is not merely commentary, but also the opportunity of thoughtful reflection. The poems, as such, slow readers down and challenge them to reflect on the narrative through the eyes of a poet. Ultimately, the reader is left not with a narrative meaning, but with a poetic one. The reader joins the narrator in filling in the sense of the story. Although this may challenge the patience of modern readers, it adds an essential feature to the meaning of biblical narrative." (pg. 319)

When one looks at these four chief poems, an emphasis on a kingly messiah figure is apparent. Furthermore, three of the four poems are specifically said to be related to “the last days”. Sailhamer explores the intertextuality of these poems and other sections of the Pentateuch and even with the Hebrew OT as a whole. He then offers a decisive verdict: the Pentateuch is decidedly messianic in focus. The laws given on Sinai are not central, rather the new covenant Moses foretells and the coming of a kingly Messiah – they are the focal point of the books of Moses.

Following the lead of the poems, Sailhamer finds several important themes in the Pentateuch itself. Some of them sound very much like ideas we find in the New Testament. He sees a stress on a singular “seed” rather than a collective “seed” as the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (and Gen. 3:15), the importance of faith as opposed to a mere law-keeping perspective, and the idea of salvation coming to those who believe and hope in God. Along the way, Sailhamer also explains the Messianic structure in the arrangement of the Hebrew canon (the Tanak) and within the psalter. Three additional points from Sailhamer’s book were especially helpful to me.

First, was the discussion of Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1. Sailhamer shows how Matthew’s use of the text in Hosea is not entirely novel, as many interpreters believe. Rather, Hosea himself is reading the Pentateuch in a messianic way. Hosea quotes Numb. 24:8, one of the messianic poems which frame the Pentateuch. So he has in mind a messianic application in his use of the text. Matthew is merely following suit. Second, was the discussion of how Gen. 49 and the surrounding chapters about Joseph’s story, actually serve to use Joseph as an example of the future kingly Messiah. In other words, the very structure of the Genesis account of Joseph is designed intentionally to see Joseph’s life as a kind of type of the future messianic kingly leader who was to come from Judah’s line.

Third, was Sailhamer’s discussion of the law as being given successively over time and in response to the sin of the Israelites. He revives the earlier teaching of John Calvin and Johann Coccejus based in large part on both Gal. 3:19 and a careful reading of the Pentateuch itself. The golden calf as well as Israelite sacrifices to goat idols (Lev. 17:1-9) are narrative sections that frame different collections of laws. Sailhamer also points out that there were laws mentioned as operative prior to the account of the giving of the 10 commandments even. This perspective merits further study especially as it doesn’t fit the mold of either covenant theology or dispensationalism’s teaching on the laws of Sinai.

Time prevents me from offering a fuller discussion of these matters. One must get the book and hear Sailhamer out. Even if one differs with some of Sailhamer’s conclusions, he must appreciate Sailhamer’s exegetical insight and the great care he has to listen to the text itself. Like John Piper implied, Sailhamer cares about “meaning”, and so should we. If you do, you will benefit from studying what John Sailhamer has to say on the Pentateuch. You may never look at the Old Testament in the same way again.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by InterVarsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

An expanded version of this review is available at CrossFocusedReviews.com, where you can find book excerpts, giveaways, promotional offers, audio reviews and more. ( )
  bobhayton | Aug 16, 2010 |
Showing 2 of 2
No short review can do this lengthy book justice. While I am critical of some of its conclusions, this work represents the culmination of a lifetime of study and reflection on the part of an important OT scholar whose views merit serious consideration. I have learned much in the process of reading it. I will no doubt reread it in the future. Sailhamer illustrates the kind of fresh and creative thinking on the OT that is possible for an evangelical scholar. One or another of John Sailhamer's devoted students is likely to take this method further in the next generation.
added by Christa_Josh | editJournal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Joe M. Sprinkle (Dec 1, 2010)
 
You must log in to edit Common Knowledge data.
For more help see the Common Knowledge help page.
Canonical title
Original title
Alternative titles
Original publication date
People/Characters
Important places
Important events
Related movies
Epigraph
Dedication
First words
Quotations
Last words
Disambiguation notice
Publisher's editors
Blurbers
Original language
Canonical DDC/MDS
Canonical LCC

References to this work on external resources.

Wikipedia in English

None

John Sailhamer sums up his perspective on the Pentateuch by first settling the hermeneutical question of where we should set our attention. Rather than focus on the history behind the text, Sailhamer is convinced that it is the text itself that should be our primary focus. Along the way he demonstrates that this was in fact the focus of many interpreters in the precritical era. --from publisher description

No library descriptions found.

Book description
Haiku summary

Current Discussions

None

Popular covers

Quick Links

Rating

Average: (4.1)
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3 2
3.5 2
4 2
4.5
5 4

Is this you?

Become a LibraryThing Author.

 

About | Contact | Privacy/Terms | Help/FAQs | Blog | Store | APIs | TinyCat | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | Common Knowledge | 203,208,800 books! | Top bar: Always visible