ANSWER TO JACOB PRASCH'S REBUTTAL
OF MIDRASH: THE CAMEL'S NOSE
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
deal
with
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 out 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 remains 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 occurrences 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. Prasch 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 mainstream
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 Prasch 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
accommodate, 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 domain 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
furthermore 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!
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 biblical 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.
"us" 1 John 4:6
P.O. Box 890
Crossville, TN
38557
(931)456-6685