From: "Richard Engstrom" <tgd@multipro.com>
To: "Kevin Burge" <kcburge@multipro.com>
Subject: Correspondence with Jacob Prasch: Midrash
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 11:49:41 -0600
Below is my response to Jacob Prasch's rebuttal of
MIDRASH: THE CAMEL'S NOSE.
His rebuttal as I received it is attached.
Richard Engstrom
Jacob Prash has responded to the article I wrote entitled MIDRASH: THE CAMEL'S NOSE. As you will see, he doesn't actually answer to any of my objections to his presentation of MIDRASH. His "rebuttal" therefore, does not actually answer to any of our concerns, nor does he seem to really care what we think, or what kind of agenda he represents. It does seem to be his habit to treat contradiction with contempt, and to hold those who disagree with him in derision.
Prasch wrote:
"I find it difficult to respond to the Camel's Nose paper which Richard
Engstrom has published against me for two reasons:
i) He repeatedly attributes things to me I either never said
or have myself warned against, and then attacks me for them.
(His lack of integrity rivals his lack of logic.)"
My reply:
I quoted directly from Prasch's article, which I still have on
file, and will gladly send it to anyone who wants to read it for themselves.
I did not attribute anything to Prasch but what he wrote. Furthermore,
I plainly declared that Mr. Prasch has declared himself to be an opponent
of the Hebrew Roots Movement. Nonetheless, his tactic of demeaning
the Protestant hermeneutic in order to promote MIDRASH, is what makes MIDRASH,
the Camel's Nose of the Hebrew Roots Movement, despite his protest to the
contrary.
Prasch wrote:
"ii) It is a waste of time trying to constructively dialogue
with people who have a cultic mentality on theological points. Be
it
with a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, a Moonie or, as in this case, an
allegedly rehabilitated Branhamite, one must first dealwith the
unbiblical nature of their presuppositions before such dialogue is possible.
Therefore, I only invest time in this
rebuttal so as not to be falsely accused of ‘dodging
the issues.' In other words, what I write here is for Engstrom's
readers and not for Engstrom." (underline, mine)
Reply:
Unable to actually consider the possibility that anyone who disagrees
with him can be anything but stupid, Prasch resorts to the same kind of
slander and innuendo that I objected to in his article. A few weeks
before he wrote this, he retracted his false accusation that we are or
were Branhamites, but here he is again, pushing the same falsehood.
Resorting to name-calling is a typical tactic of those who know that they
haven't got a leg to stand on.
As you will see from his "rebuttal", he can write quite a lot and STILL dodge the issues.
Prasch wrote:
When Engstrom initially asked me if I thought his little cult
group living in isolation from the rest of the world, could
come to a complete understanding of all God's deeds through only
the KJV, I replied, No, because the priority is on the
original languages, not a sixteenth century English translation.
(underline, mine)
What I actually asked:
"1. Can a group of sincere, literate, English
speaking people in isolation from the rest of the world, come to a COMPLETE
understanding of ALL that God deeds to us through the Bible, if all they
have in their possession is a KJV without notes (without Midrash, without
Eidersheim, without Josephus)?"
Prasch complains:
I merely argued for the need to give exegetical priority to the
original text and context, a view which Engstrom does not
share. The fact that in his Camel's Nose paper Engstrom
distorted my statement by reporting only that I had said No, without giving
my reasons, shows that he believes it is acceptable to distort the facts
in pursuit of the greater good.
Prasch's original full answer:
1. The Word of God was given in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic -
not Elizabethan English. I accept the infallibility of the original manuscripts
in the original languages, and not the infallibility of any translation,
be it KJV or otherwise. Literacy in English is not a major factor, scripture
demonstrates the importance of bringing ouit the original meaning in the
original languages (eg. Neh. 8:8 where after the captivity most people
no longer knew Hebrew so the original Hebrew meaning had to be explained).
Hence, because I believe in the priority of the original languages (I have
more faith in the bible than I do in translations of it) my answer to your
first question is no.
Reply:
No matter how you slice it, his answer was NO! He denies that
YOU, dear reader, can come to a COMPLETE understanding of ALL that God
deeds to us through the Bible, if all you have in your possession is a
KJV without notes (without Midrash, without Eidersheim, without Josephus).
You be the judge. Did I misrepresent his answer or not?
Prasch wrote:
1. Engstrom has misled his readers in the following areas:
(a) In the first section of his paper Engstrom says that the
Hebrew Roots Movement is the latest attempt to judaize the
church.
I have myself warned in print against this element within the
Hebrew Roots Movement. It is dishonest of him to tar me with the
same brush. Engstrom also fails to distinguish between the valid
biblical teaching about the Hebrew Root (Greek: reza - singular) in Romans
11:18 and the unscriptural nonsense going on today that I and MORIEL have
written against. In mixing
the two, Engstrom appears to be bent on deception.
Jacob wrote in his article, MIDRASH:
"Something went wrong in the early Church; it got away from its Jewish
roots. And as more Gentiles became Christians, something that Paul (in
Romans 11) warned should not happen, happened. People lost sight of the
root." [bold & underline, mine]
To which I replied in my article:
First of all, it is impossible for ANY student of the Bible to miss
the significance of our "Jewish roots". This is absurd. The entire Old
Testament constitutes Hebrew History, and I would be willing to bet that
most Christians are more familiar with Jewish History than they are of
the history of their own nation. and the New Testament has always said
that we who are saved, now belong to the commonwealth of Israel.
You will notice that Prasch uses the plural: roots, in his article, and therefore it is utterly absurd to try and construct a case against me on these grounds. Furthermore, if he wants to escape the caricature of someone who is working in harmony with the Hebrew Roots Movement, all he has to do is to drop this MIDRASH business. The fact reImagess that MIDRASH, as a system of Biblical interpretation, can be traced to extra-biblical Judaism. Apart from two incidental uses of this Hebrew word in the Old Testament and some treatment of the subject by Lightfoot and Bullinger, there is no tradition of MIDRASH established in historic Christian scholarship.
Jacob wrote:
(b) Engstrom mixes The Law and Prophets being preached
until John with Midrash.
This is a ridiculous mixture of two unrelated things. To dismiss a model of hermeneutic used by Paul after Jesus fulfilled the Law, because the Law is fulfilled, is simply stupid. (underline, mine)
Reply:
I want you to NOTICE:
1. That Jacob Prasch clearly identifies MIDRASH in terms of being an HERMENEUTIC PRINCIPLE, which he also ascribes to Jesus and Paul. None of these things is asserted in the Bible. The law and the prophets were until John (luke 16:16): MIDRASH was contrived by the Jews from the law and the prophets. Did I miss something?
2. I will stipulate that MIDRASH is an hermeneutic principle used by the Rabbi's of Jesus' day, BUT it is also undistinguished from the other traditions of the Jews that Jesus condemned. It was, in fact, an hermeneutic that was applied to the Law and the Prophets, and it was never mentioned in the Bible, either by way of definition or as something that ought to be retained as a part of the Gospel. The entire supposed justification for the MIDRASH is taken from 2 occurances of this word in the Old Testament.
3. Jacob Prasch presents MIDRASH to us as an essential but heretofore absent or suppressed element in Protestant hermeneutics, which is needed to correct our understanding of the Bible, which understanding Prasch implies has been flawed, almost from the beginning by an Hellenistic rather than an Hebraic world-view.
Hence my assertion in MIDRASH: THE CAMEL'S NOSE:
"First, we are just being asked to acknowledge the "possible" superiority of the Jewish system of interpretation (MIDRASH) in contrast to the so-called "obvious" flaws in the Protestant system of Biblical interpretation."
Prasch wrote:
(c) Engstrom, making supposed reference to the Jerusalem School
of Synoptic Research, says They lied to you and didn't
tell you the New Testament was originally written in Hebrew.
Engstrom is aware that I have challenged this position. His efforts to link me to something I have opposed is deceitful.
(d) Engstrom then goes on with an attack on keeping Jewish holy days.
I have warned on our tapes against any legislating of holy day
observance, on the basis of Romans 14:4 and Colossians 2:16-18 (hence,
more deceit by Engstrom). However the New Testament does use the Hebrew
holidays and their typology as teaching tools for the church (1 Corinthians
5:6-8, Hebrews 4:7-9). Is Engstrom's problem with me, with Jews, or with
the
Word of God?
I wrote in my article:
"Although he claims to be an outspoken opponent of the Hebrew Roots
Movement, per se, it is his stated agenda to reintroduce into Christendom
the Midrashic system of Biblical interpretation. Why? Because he judges
the Protestant system to be deficient and fundamentally flawed."
And:
" I have no evidence that Mr. Prash is conspiratorially working with
any segment of the Hebrew Roots movement, so it could be that he is just
an unwitting tool of those Judaizers and they will not be content with
Christ's "one new man" (Eph.2:15), unless that man is Jewish in culture,
tradition and religion."
Further reply:
I still insist that MIDRASH is just the Camel's Nose of the Hebrew
Roots Movement, and the more egregious errors of the Jerusalem School of
Synoptic Research are only different in matter of degree. I acknowledged
Prasch's outspoken opposition to the more extreme elements of the Hebrew
Roots Movement, but while he is speaking against them in our hearing, he
is also helping to push their agenda by intimating that without his MIDRASH,
we shall be deprived of a right understanding of Scripture.
On Prasch's Moriel website is found the following endorsement:
http://users.sgi.net/~moriel/u-frends.html
"Moriel and Jacob Prasch are pleased to endorse the following ministries, among others, as Christ-centered, doctrinally sound, and warmly deserving of your prayers and support."
Directly linked is Messengers of Messiah, an aggressive Hebrew Roots
Movement organization. Some questions must be answered.
Like how is it that one who claims to be so vehemently opposed to the
HRM, has no problem with recommending outspoken proponents of the very
thing he claims to oppose?
Prasch wrote:
2. Engstrom goes on about Midrash, both misunderstanding it and
distorting things I have written by taking them out of context.
(a) He seems to argue that Paul was not a rabbi because the title was not asigned him by the New Testament.
To argue that a rabbinic disciple of Gamaliel was not a rabbi
is silly. The New Testament plainly shows Paul to have been a
rabbi, as was Jesus.
The gospels, written in and for a Jewish culture, transliterate
rabbi from Aramaic, directly calling Jesus rabbi. The Epistles, written
in a Hellenistic setting, use the Greek equivalent peadion.
Reply:
The only reason why Prasch needs for us to recognize the appellation
of Rabbi in connection to Jesus and Paul is that he needs this to add some
legitimacy to his MIDRASH. He cannot find the writers of the New
Testament calling Jesus and Paul, Rabbi, so he surmises on the basis of
Paul's education under Gamaliel, and the fact that some in Israel CALLED
Jesus, Rabbi, that this title should be attributed to them, and by intimation,
the Jewish traditions of midrashic interpretation as well.
Prasch wrote:
(b) Displaying gross ignorance of the matters he seeks to elaborate
upon, for some undiscernable reason Engstrom introduces the subject of
the Septuagint (a Pre-Christian Jewish text) in identification with the
Alexandrian school of hermeneutics in the early church.
Except that he is making a public fool of himself by confusing something Pre-Christian with a school of theology existing nearly four centuries later in the same location, I am unable to account for these ramblings. There were two primary schools of hermeneutics in the Patristic era - the Antiochan (identified with the Cappadocian Fathers) and the Alexandrian (associated with Clement, Origen, but with seminal influences in Philo, and later heavily gnosticized by Valentinus and Basilides). Since Engstrom plainly has no idea of what he is talking about, I cannot comment further on what he means. A paper containing such ignorance would be laughed out of any theological seminary.
Reply:
Quote from Prasch's article:
"Midrash makes heavy use of allegory and typology to illustrate and illuminate doctrine, but never as a basis for doctrine. It sees multiple meanings in Bible texts found in strata, but this is very different in certain fundamental respects from the gnostic and Alexandrian uses of figurative interpretation associated with Philo and Origen, reflecting more of Hebraic, rather than Helenistic philosophical world-view and view of theology."
Notice:
Prasch lumps together the Alexandrian and gnostic schools of thought,
puts them into a bag called, "Hellenistic philosophical world-view," and
contrasts these with the "more correct" Hebraic view of things. In
doing this, he underhandedly casts historic orthodoxy as fundamentally
captive to the errors that have long since been denounced, while intimating
that the only solution to the problem is a return to a pre-Christian hermeneutic,
specifically, his MIDRASH. I say, his MIDRASH, because he also distinguishes
between something called bad and good MIDRASH, a distinction which, though
it might be clear to him is certainly unclear to most everyone else.
Jacob wrote:
(c) Engstrom asserts that rabbinic hermeneutics was repudiated
by Jesus.
Again, Engstrom exhibits gross ignorance. The Mishnah and Qumran texts
demonstrate an identical hermeneutic structure between
Jesus and the other rabbis of his day (see E.P. Sanders, Christ and Palestinian
Judaism).It would be obvious to any seminary graduate that Engstrom is
way out of his league in making such blatantly false assertions.
There are two forms of Midrash in the classic Second Temple Period
and early post-Second Temple Period expression -
Haggadic' (interpretation of narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, etc.)
and Halachic' (the legalistic material based on nomianism and law keeping).
It was not the former Jesus castigated, but the latter.
Unless someone were seminary trained they would not know this.
I have no problem with the fact that Engstrom is not seminary trained,
but I do have a problem with his pretence that he knows what he is talking
about when he most certainly
does not.
Reply:
I was recently scolded by one of Mr. Prasch's friends for accusing
him of being an advocate of the same kind of priest-craft that we have
rejected in the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. But here,
he gives himself away. It is not enough that I have 25 years of serious
Bible study behind me; it is not enough that I have also read thousands
of pages of Church history and early Christian writings. No, unless
I have been initiated into Mr. Prasch's particular arcanities, he will
not afford me the right to disagree with him.
And now he regards my education and knowledge of the Truth to be deficient because I haven't also studied the Mishnah and Qumran texts. He calls me stupid because I didn't know that Jesus denounced "Halachic" Midrash and not his "Haggadic" Midrash.
No. this is all still about our first objection in which Mr. Prasch denies that a literate English-speaking person can ever adequately understand his Bible without a veritable mountain of extra-biblical knowledge, and even knowledge that has been, for 1900 years, outside of orthodox Christian scholarship.
Jacob wrote:
(d) Engstrom says he finds it astounding that I present prophecy as
pattern as a new concept.
His claim is ludicrous. I have never said such a thing; I cannot
defend what I did not say. What I did say is that since Qumran we know
that this is centrally how the Jewish mind of Jesus' day understood prophecy,
that the New Testament handling of prophecy fits this pattern, and
that it supports those who for years (eg. Harry Ironside) argued prophecy
could have multiple fulfillment.
I also never used pattern to deny literal fulfillment as Engstrom
falsely suggests. For those interested, I am not the only one presenting
such views (see Prophecy As Pattern In Luke by Dr. Darryl Bock - Professor
- Dallas Seminary, edited by I. Howard Marshall). There are Imagesstream
evangelical theologians in agreement with my position. It is again a case
of Engstrom babbling on about issues outside his knowledge.
Reply:
Quote from Prasch's article:
"Midrash interprets prophecy as a cyclical pattern of historical recapitulation
(prophecies having multiple fulfillment), with an ultimate fulfillment
associated with the eschaton, which is the final focal point of the redemptive
process."
And:
"Not prediction, but pattern the Jewish idea of prophecy is not prediction,
but pattern."
All you have to do is to read Prasch's article for yourself. You will see that, over and over again, Prasch describes MIDRASH as superior to the hermeneutic of historic Protestant orthodoxy. If he does not SAY that "prophecy as pattern" is a new concept, he does intimate that the view of prophecy according to his MIDRASH is inherently superior, and therefore NEW to US. Does he outright deny the predictive nature of Prophecy? No, and neither did I say that he did, BUT, from the above quotes you can see that he clearly diminishes the predictive aspect of prophecy. Did he mean to do this or was he just reckless in his expression? He will have to answer for himself.
He accuses me of babbling on about issues outside my knowedge. My scope of knowledge centers upon what the Bible says. I find no recommendation of a Jewish MIDRASH in my Bible. Do you? Are you awed by his list of "experts"? Are you now convinced that you need Prasch and his "experts" to tell you what the Bible says?
Jacob wrote:
3. Engstrom then assails my view of Protestant Exegesis on a
few grounds:
(a) He somehow substitutes grammatical-historical exegesis
for literal grammatical exegesis.
I do not comprehend his point. The humanist scholarship that gave rise to the Reformation's hermeneutics studied the scriptures in a literal sense as both literature and history, hence grammatical-historical exegesis, with a stress on the literal meaning in both cases. If Engstrom has a point (which I doubt), he has not made it very well.
Reply:
From letters I have received, thanking me for writing on this subject,
I conclude that I have made my point quite clearly. If Jacob wants
to pretend ignorance of the difference between Literal-grammatical and
Historical-grammatical interpretation, it is only to suggest that if he
doesn't know it, it is not worth knowing. Nonetheless, I am quite
certain that he does know the difference, but being caught for dishonesty,
he now claims to misunderstand.
Jacob wrote:
(b) Engstrom, in an outright lie, states that I argue Christians
should resort to the traditions of the Pharisees.
I cannot defend statements I have never made and have never believed. Engstrom's statement is completely without basis.
Reply:
Quote from Prasch's article:
"The clearest set of guidelines in Midrash are the Seven Midroth attributed
to Rabbi Hillel, the founder of the Pharisaic School of Hillel,
where Rabbi Shaul (St. Paul) was educated as a rabbi by Rabbi Gamaliel,
the grandson of Hillel." [underline, mine]
Prasch insists that Jesus and Paul were Rabbis in the tradition of the Pharisees, like Gamaliel, and insists that their interpretation of Scripture was based upon the MIDRASH, which he recommends as different and superior to what we have known and learned from the Bible itself. In other words, he IS recommending that we return to the traditions of the Pharisees.
Jacob wrote:
(c) Engstrom goes on to defend Augustine of Hippo as a great
and revered man and takes issue with my view of him.
Engstrom first of all contradicts himself in that he affirms my criticism of Augustine's Manicheanism to be correct. Augustine was the one who first preached that the church could use violence to convert people (making himself the forefather of the Inquisitions and countless episodes of violence and war carried out in the name of Christianity). Influenced by Ambrose and Cyprian, Augustine argued for sprinkling babies because the church was composed of the saved and unsaved, so we should pronounce everyone Christian as it was the religion of the Empire (making himself a forefather of nominalism, instead of biblical ecclesia). Augustine established the doctrine of Post Millenialism as Christendom became the religion of the state (making himself the forefather of Kingdom Now' Theology).
Reply:
There is no doubt that had I been a contemporary of Augustine that
we would have been at war over some of his doctrines, which I definitely
consider to be heretical. Jacob Prash however, would make it necessary
to reject EVERYTHING that Augustine wrote, for his errors in some of the
things he wrote. Does this mean that I should reject everything that
Jacob Prasch writes because he has errors of his own? Here again
is another example of the way Prasch tries to undermine historical Christian
Scholarship in order to insert his MIDRASH: he intimates that by
receiving anything they had to say that we are also buying in on their
errors.
Prasch wrote:
In addressing his specific question, Engstrom once more demonstrates
his ignorance. In the Greek metaphysical world, theology and spirituality
were dualistic. The Greeks for instance had the concept of the Logos
(which the Jews called the dvar or Mamre), but because the Jews were not
dualists they had an incarnational Christology — The Word became
flesh.
Reply:
I guess our New Testament is seriously flawed after all? The
apostle John saw fit to use the word "Logos". Is Prasch now suggesting
that the use of this word is based upon the false conception of Dualism?
Or is he suggesting that our New Testament which came to us written in
Greek is a perversion of earlier "authentic" texts that were written in
Hebrew or Aramaic, which is the same thing that is being asserted by the
Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, and other HRM proponents?
Prasch wrote:
Greek dualism saw God as impassible, thus could not come to terms with
a God becoming a man as the Jews could at that time accomodate, despite
Pharisaic resistance to it (hear our tape on The Metatron). John
1 was, in part, a Judeo-Christian polemic against Greek dualism. This dualism
evolved into gnosticism, of which Manicheanism was a form. In this dualistic
thought, everything spiritual was good, but what was physical was the doImages
of a lesser God (a view which partially underlay Paul's discourse
in Athens with the Epicureans and Stoics — Acts 17). This Greek
dualism gave rise to various heretical influences infiltrating the
early church, including Docetism as well as Manicheanism.
It was Augustine, influenced by the Alexandrian School and
importing gnostic models into the Latin West from the Greek East, that
gave a warped exegetical credence to his packaging of Manichianism as a
Christian belief. He used a Hellenistic, as opposed to Judaic, hermeneutic
model in his treatment of 1 Corinthians 7:32-34.
A non-dualistic Judaic approach, as seen in John 1, would have prevented
this doctrine of demons, as Paul called it (1 Timothy 4:1-3).
Engstrom does not understand the basic differences between
the dualistic and non-dualistic approaches to hermeneutics that distinguished
the Hellenistic and Hebraic models. And while he may choose to respect
the progenitor of so much of what has been fundamentally unbiblical
in the church up until this very day, others retain the right, on
the basis of the irrefutable facts, to form a different opinion.
Reply:
Tactic: When you cannot answer to the issues - change the subject,
or try to bury your opponent in tons of irrelevant verbiage.
Prasch wrote:
(d) Engstrom wishes to know why we need a ‘new' system
of biblical interpretation in order to be rescued from the ancient heresies
of the Manicheans.
Midrash predates western Protestant exegetical methods by
two millenia and was used by the Lord and the Apostles.
A better question would be, Why do we need the new system
of biblical interpretation the Reformers copied from late
Mediaeval humanists?
Reply:
Once again, Prasch suggests that Protestant orthodoxy is different
and inferior to historical Judaic Scriptural interpretation. He furthermors
suggests that the Reformers copied their system of Biblical interpretation
from the Medieval humanists - lackies, one and all, right?
Prasch's often repeated assertion that Jesus and His apostles used MIDRASH in their interpretation of Scripture he expects you to be believe, just because he said so. I challenge him to prove it! He cannot prove it any more than some of our so-called scientists can prove that they found a rock on earth that came from Mars. He hopes to add legitimacy to his MIDRASH by asserting a connection to Jesus and the Apostles, which you can NOT FIND in your Bible - NO NOT ANYWHERE!
Prasch wrote:
(e) Engstrom argues for a radical dichotomy between Erasmus and
Luther.
Poor ignoramus! As Roland Bainton, the definitive academic historian on Luther and Erasmus said, Erasmus layed the egg, Luther hatched it. I am indeed familiar with Luther's Bondage of The Human Will, I studied it at Cambridge. What Engstrom does not seem to realize is that the schism developed progressively. Luther's "Babylonian Captivity Of The Church" drew directly from the seminal influences of Erasmus' Praise Of Folly and Julius Exclusis. Luther's bible was directly inspired by Erasmus' New Testament (as the ‘KJV only' crowd are always pointing out, both derived from the same composite of Byzantian source manuscripts later called Textus Receptus). In the Counter-Reformation, the papacy plainly saw a cause and effect relationship between Erasmus and the Reformers. No scholar has ever rejected the seminal influence of Erasmus on Luther and the Reformers. Again Engstrom is proclaiming only his ignorance.
Reply:
No one denies Erasmus's valuable contribution in his translation of
the New Testament. Just because Luther acknowledged Erasmus's expertise
in his textual scholarship does not mean that they were in any agreement
at all in their theology and doctrine, and they were not. To characterize
Luther as Erasmus's hand-puppet is absurd. If Erasmus had had his way,
there would have been no Protestant reformation at all, but just a readjustment
within Romanism that left everything more or less intact, including the
doctrines which made it necessary to defect from the RCC in the first place.
Prasch wrote:
(f) Engstrom wrongly claims that I said Midrash cannot be explained.
Lost for argument, Engstrom simply reverts to out and out lying.
I have never said that Midrash cannot be explained. Get a copy of R.N.
Longenecker's Jewish Exegesis In The Apostolic Church or the works of Jacob
Nuesner. What I did say however, is that if one has no background
in Hebrew and rabbinics, it is easier to demonstrate Midrash than
explain it. Engstrom is a liar.
Reply:
What I actually wrote:
" Can't explain it? Neither can anyone else, apparently. After doing
a brief survey on the subject, I found that some call it just a collection
of homiletics. Jacob Prasch calls it an hermeneutic principle, which is
the "scholars'" term for, "principles of interpretation". So let's get
down to the nub on this matter: Mr. Prasch asserts that historical Christian
Biblical interpretation has been flawed, almost from the beginning, because
we didn't stick with the Jewish methods of interpretation that Jesus denounced.
He says that Jesus Christ, Himself, and Paul, used the midrashic system
of biblical interpretation, which he asserts to be superior to the grammatical-historical
system, while ignoring the fact that it is the literal-grammatical system
of interpretation that defines historic Protestant orthodoxy."
Further reply:
Here and again, Prasch implies that before you can really learn MIDRASH,
you must first learn Hebrew and rabbinics. All of this is evasive,
and it is PRIEST-CRAFT in the classic sense. Prasch is proposing
that we NEED some knowledge that we can only learn from PEOPLE LIKE HIM,
or else our ability to rightly understand the Bible is distinctly
crippled. I vehemently reject the notion that a comprehensive understanding
of the Bible is in any way out of reach for anyone who has a Bible and
perhaps, a common ordinary dictionary. Spiritual blindness is a moral problem,
not an intellectual problem.
Prasch wrote:
(g) Engstrom states that those looking for multiple meanings
in Scripture are in all probability trying to avoid the obvious. He also
asserts that the Reformational assertion of there being only one application
of a Scripture is reactive against both Roman Catholicism and Midrash.
In Midrash the simple or peshet interpretation must be established
before the pesher or deeper level can be addressed. Engstrom clearly knows
nothing of the Midrash he criticizes. Moreover, in none of the Reformation
writings was there ever even a mention of Midrash. He again does not have
a clue of what he is talking about.
Reply;
What I actually wrote:
"The Reformation assertion that "there are many applications of a Scripture
but only one interpretation," is indeed reactive against the errors of
Romanism, but is also just as reactive against the Midrashic hermeneutic.
I have read with my own eyes the proposition by rabbis that there are at
least 40 interpretations of every Scripture and as many as 75 different
interpretations. Anyone who spends their time looking for 40 interpretations
of a verse of Scripture, is, in all probability, only trying to avoid the
obvious."
Prasch wrote:
The first significant Christian figure to address Midrash was the Puritan
scholar John Lightfoot at a much later point. He approved of Midrash (as
did the Puritan fathers generally) and wrote a three part Midrashic Commentary
on the New Testament as a Christian Exposition. (I am not the first believer
to urge the church ro revert to its Hebraic root in terms of hermeneutic
- the Puritans were, but Engstrom does not know that either). In absurdity
of absurdities Engstrom contradicts himself . First he states: Anyone who
spends their time looking for 40 interpretations of a verse of scripture
is in all probability only trying to avoid the obvious. Then he affirms
my example of Jonah, and admits, I never read or heard anyone propose that
the riches of scripture are confined to a single sense (which contradicts
both his previous statement and his earlier defense of a single meaning).
We do not simply have a case of Engstrom not agreeing with me,
we have Engstrom disagreeing with Engstrom. If he did not seem to lie so
compulsively, I could write him off with some compassion as a confused
man. Engstrom then immediately proceeds to sanction my midrashic
exposition of John 1 - 3! Any intellegent reader will see that, in setting
out to disagree with me, Engstrom winds up endorsing my use of Midrash.
Reply:
I have NO OBJECTION to Prasch, or anyone using MIDRASH to explore the
depths of Scripture. WHAT I OBJECT TO is the unrelenting suggestions
and innuendoes of Jacob Prasch that the fundamentals of literal-grammatical
interpretation, which are the foundations of Protestant orthodoxy, ought
to be discounted and replaced by the historical traditions of Judaic MIDRASH.
How he can deny that his presentation of this matter is NOT in substantial
harmony with the agenda of the HRM people is beyond my comprehension.
PLEASE NOTICE Prasch's admission that MIDRASH was not even a subject of consideration until just a couple hundred years ago. For 1600 years, MIDRASH was completely absent from Christian Scholarship; the Holy Spirit, sent by God to lead us into all Truth, did not see fit to make the MIDRASH a part of our Christian heritage. Even Lightfoot's Midrashic Commentary on the New Testament was left to gather dust as little more than a curiosity, until the Hebrew Roots people found a way to use it as a "foot in the door."
Prasch wrote:
(h) Engstrom concludes this section by falsely stating that I
equated the Reformers with the secular humanists of today.
Here again, Engstrom is nothing more than an unmitigated liar.
I clarified the differences between the Christian humanists of the
16th century and the later secular humanists of today. It is obvious
that Engstrom has a simple philosophy: If you cannot argue - lie.
Reply:
What I actually wrote:"
"The "Humanists" were certainly guilty of Mr. Prasch's charge, but
by inferring that the Reformers were no different than the secular Humanists,
this well informed and usually astute scholar is bearing false witness.
He knows that the common conception of what a Humanist is today, has little
in common with what it meant to be a Humanist in the sixteenth century.
By failing to make the distinction between social-political Humanism
and contemporary Religious Humanism, Mr. Prasch appears to being playing
to the prejudice of his audience in order to make the Reformers appear
all the more unreliable and trivial."
Prasch's "clarification"
"The Reformation was born out of something called Humanism.
(Note: the first Humanists were not secular, they were Christians.)
The best of the Humanists were men like Thomas A Kempis, John Colet,
and Jacques Lefèvre. But the greatest of them all was Erasmus of
Rotterdam. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and most of the other Reformers got
their ideas from Erasmus.
" (underline, mine)
Yes, technically, Prasch did make a faint distinction between secular
and Christian humanists, but even as I have painted the Camel's Nose on
top of the word MIDRASH so that it will stick, Prasch by his use of the
term hopes to paint the Reformers with the label of humanist, which today
has clear and derogatory implications. He will
probably deny it but having had correspondence with this fox in the
past, I am becoming familiar with his tactics.
Prasch wrote:
4. Richard Engstrom states that Midrash is not important to prophecy.
(a) He states that it does not matter what Hosea (or, I assume, the
other divinely inspired authors of the bible)
thought.
This is the nonsense thinking that the liberal higher critical theologians use to discredit orthodoxy. The bible is fully the Word of God and fully the Word of Man. It is an incarnational logos in itself (The WORD). Like Christ Himself, Scripture is both fully human and fully divine. The authors the Holy Spirit inspired were intelligent men who placed the imprint of their character, emphasis, and understanding on what they wrote under direct divine inspiration. They did not write blindly like a mystic.
Reply:
John wrote that we are in the last hour - but we weren't in the last
hour, 1900 years ago, were we? Isaiah thought that he was prophesying
about the birth of his own son when he prophesied: "Therefore the Lord
himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel," but he wasn't prophesying about
his own son, was he?
It is clear that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of the writers of the Scriptures was overriding their present considerations: the gift is greater than the man. As it is written:
(2 Pet 1:21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Prasch wrote:
So too, the interpreters of the Bible (such as Matthew, who interpreted
Hosea 11:2) used a method of exegesis found in the Dead Sea scrolls and
early Midrashim, which was fully in character with the culture in which
God inspired Matthew to write. The case for Matthew using a Midrashic
pesher (as many conservative scholars have argued for) is a firm counter
apologetic to liberal attacks (such as James Barr of Oxford) on the uses
of the Old Testament in the New.
Reply:
And now, Matthew is just an interpreter of the Bible? I guess
SO! Who can ever argue with Mr. Prasch's experts, and especially someone
from Oxford?
Prasch wrote:
Even W. Kaiser and those scholars not leaning towards a midrashic view
of apostolic exegesis (although he is begining to come around a bit) would
not agree with such an irresponsible statement as that made by Engstrom.
Reply;
Ooooooooooo! More experts!
CONCLUSION
MIDRASH, connected as it is to the other Pre and Post-Christian writings of the Jews, such as the Talmud, Mishnah, Kabbalah, etc., is being foisted upon us as JUST THAT PART of dead and apostate Judaism, which ought to be received as a remedial solution to our "flawed" system of biblical interpretation.
Jacob Prasch, who claims to be specifically against the more egregious errors of the Hebrew Roots Movement, nonetheless has become one of the foremost proponents of the MIDRASH.
His presentation of MIDRASH is saturated with denigrations of our historic Christian Scholars, many of whom are responsible for the establishment of Christian orthodoxy. He suggests that their (and our) literal-grammatical system of biblical interpretation is, and has been, fundamentally flawed. He does this by attempting to tar them all with the same brush, making people like Luther, part and parcel with men like Origen, whose errors in bibical interpretation have long since been repudiated.
He tries to get rid of people like me, by calling us names, or denying us the right to contradict him because we do not have "the credentials".
MIDRASH is just the Camel's Nose of the Hebrew Roots Movement, and if Mr. Prasch does not relent from his campaign to displace historic Christian Scholarship with his MIDRASH, he shall not be able to escape being identified as just another JUDAIZER, just like those in the Hebrew Roots Movement.
`Despatch'
Magazine & "Beauty
for Ashes" Booklet
Childrens
Devotions also access daily
email
devotions
bi-monthly
Mini-Despatch
RETURN TO
Images DESPATCH T.O.C.
.
Click
Here
despatch@mail.cth.com.au