Second Temple Jewish Exegesis: A Hermeneutical Approach to The New Testament Pablo D. Daut BTI6500: Methods and Issues in Biblical Interpretation November 2022 Second Temple Jewish Exegesis: A Hermeneutical Approach to The New Testament It is not a surprise anymore—thanks, in part, to what we have inherited from linguists in the past century—that communication does not and cannot take place in or from a cultural vacuum: speech itself is not natural as walking is; it is acquired culturally. Edward Sapir, Language: An introduction to the study of speech (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace, 1921), 5. In different words, postmodernism did get this one right: there is no so-called pure objectivity when it comes to communication, either by mouth or by pen. Language, as it is, involves and is involved in intricate subconscious connections created by one’s own values, beliefs, and surrounding presuppositions. By consenting that such is the case of any writer in any given time in known history, one is bound to look at the writers of the biblical cannon with and through the same lenses; unless, of course, one holds the now-widely rejected notion of the Dictation Theory. Wayne Grudem, Doctrina Bíblica: Enseñanzas esenciales de la fe cristiana (Miami, FL: Editorial Vida, 2005), 11. Inspiration assumes that human authors kept their humanity intact as they (or their amanuenses) were penning the words of God. There was nothing celestial about the language they used: nothing heavenly regarding the rhetorical and literary devices employed to convey the message. Most if not all the themes in the New Testament are not written ex nihilo, but ex materia, most of which materia (according to the Second Temple exegetical school) is understood to be the literature written within the Jewish community during the Second Temple period, covering roughly four-hundred years (200 B. C. to 200 A. D.). In other words, because the N. T. writers are presupposed to have been the literary children of the aforementioned period, it is argued that the correct way to interpret their canonical writings is to approach and interpret them as a product of Second Temple Judaism. Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 23. Key Proponents Three proponents are considered in this paper as contending in favor of this hermeneutic, with some minor differences between them. First, Richard Longenecker, as seen in his Biblical Exegesis in The Apostolic Period (second edition). A distinguished professor of New Testament in Canada (McMaster University and Wycliffe College), Longenecker will strive to prove how the fulfillment theme in the New Testament is an exegetical device inherited from the Dead Sea covenanters (more below). Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 27. Second in line is Peter Enns, professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University (PA); his position portrayed in his view “Fuller meaning, Single Goal” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of The Old Testament. Enns maintains a sensus plenior hermeneutic regarding the Christo-telic rereading of the Old Testament by New Testament writers. Peter Enns, “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal,” in Three Views on the New Testament Use of The Old Testament, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, Kenneth Berding, Jonathan Lunde (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 206. Thirdly, the Honduran Dr. Raúl Zaldívar, president of the Universidad Para Líderes Internacional, as seen in his recent book Las Fuentes que Dieron Origen al Nuevo Testamento, arguing that the deuterocanonical literature gave the N. T. its theological origin. Raúl Zaldívar, Las Fuentes Que Dieron Origen al Nuevo Testamento (Viladecavalls, Barcelona: Editorial CLIE, 2020), 53. Defining the Scope and Main Tenets When scholars refer to Second Temple Jewish literature, they normally allude to a wide variety of writings under the following headings: Apocrypha (300 B. C. through 90 A. D., also called deuterocanonical in Roman Catholic circles), Pseudepigrapha (200 B. C. through 200 A. D., including Jubilees, 1 Enoch, Assumption of Isaiah, 12 Patriarchs, etc.), the Dead Sea scrolls (140 B. C. through 68 A. D.), the writings of Philo de Hellenist (20 B. C. through 50 A. D.), and the writings of Josephus, the historian (37 through 100 A. D.). Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature, 21. Within these writings, the search is delimited by two areas of focus; firstly, their own way of exegeting and dealing with Old Testament texts, and secondly, the development of certain themes that were left, at best, underdeveloped by the canonical prophets and taken—and further developed—by N. T. writers. We shall briefly introduce these two areas respectively, after which two biblical examples shall be presented in favor of this hermeneutic. Strengths and weaknesses of this exegetical school shall be assessed as a conclusion. As regards to the first subject matter—that is, the hermeneutics employed by the intertestamental period writers—the findings are far from monochromatic. Longenecker shows in great detail the different exegetical schools that were already present during these centuries. First, the literalist school, whose main characteristic was, as the name betrays, a rather wooden attachment to the text of Scripture (especially laws). It does not take much effort for a lay yet knowledgeable reader of the Gospels how fond the Pharisee party was, at times, of this type of hermeneutic (cf. Matthew 23). It is important to note that this rather obsessive attachment to the words of the Torah—and the so-called second or oral Torah, that is, the explications, implications and practical applications of the Torah kept for generations as highly valuable tradition—was not born out of hypocrisy or for its own sake. It was rather a reactionary movement against an incumbent hellenization of the Jews and the Jewish faith within its own ranks (cf. I and II Maccabees). The literalistic reading of the Old Testament was an effort to keep the faith of the fathers, intact which, sadly, would later become more interested in the scrupulous reading and keeping the words of the law, and miss its heart altogether (Mark 2: 23-28). That was not, nevertheless, the only kind of exegesis practiced by Rabbinical Judaism. There was also the Midrashic exegesis, which consisted in the practice of deriving interpretations from the texts that were not obvious prima facie. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 21. This hermeneutic, widely used by rabbis, was “verso-centric and philologically focused … every letter of a word, every phrase, was open to interpretation, for the Bible, God’s Word, was expressed in a certain way to teach or explain something.” Carol Bakhos, “Midrash, Midrashim,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 945. Composed in the second century A. D., Melkita de Rabbi Ishamel stands out as one of one of the major Midrashic works produced by Rabbi Ishmael. It is a verse-by-verse (sometimes atomistic) commentary on Exodus 12:1–23:1. In his commentary on the opening line of Exodus 12:1, “The Lord said to Moses and Aaron …”, he makes a rather lengthy deduction regarding the equal importance of Aaron and Moses (only from the fact that the order of the names is used interchangeably elsewhere!): Variantly: "to Moses and to Aaron": I might think that the one who takes precedence in the verse takes precedence in the act. It is, therefore, written (Exodus 6:26)"It is Aaron and Moses" — Both are equal. Similarly, (Exodus 1:1) “In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth": I might think that what takes precedence in the verse took precedence in creation. It is, therefore, written (Genesis 2:4) "on the day that the L-rd G-d made earth and heaven" — They were both created together. Similarly, (Exodus 3:6) "I am the G-d of your father, the G-d of Abraham, the G-d of Isaac, and the G-d of Jacob." I might think that whoever comes first in the verse comes first in importance. It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 26:42) "Then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember" — to teach that all three are of equal importance. Similarly, (Exodus 20:12) "Honor your father and your mother." (Leviticus 19:3) "A man, his mother and his father shall you fear." — Both are of equal importance. Rabbi Ishmael, Mekhilta De Rabbi Ishmael, trans. Jacob Z. Lauterbach (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), 1. Thirdly, the Pesharim, or the pesher hermeneutic, most widely known through the Dead Sea scrolls. The word means “interpretation”, and it consisted of quoting the canonical text from the O. T., “followed by a formulaic phrase that includes the word pesher … applying the text to the author’s own historical context, which is believed to be situated in the end of days.” Shani Berrin Tzoref, “Pesharim,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 1050. Since the Dead Sea community saw itself as the purified elect community—in sharp contrast to the corrupted temple community of Jerusalem—, it understood Scriptures to be directly related to them, the last generation alive before the coming of the Messiah (as they perceived themselves). Elliger put it succinctly: “pesher interpretation is predicated upon the belief that the content of biblical prophecy concerns the end time, and that the end time is the time of the author.” Elliger, as quoted by Tzoref, “Pesharim,” 1052. One of the clearest examples of this is found in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls texts, 1QpHab 7:1–5, which is a commentary on Habakkuk 2:2: “And God told Habakkuk to write down that which would happen to the final generation, but He did not make known to him when time would come to an end. And as for that which He said, That he who reads may read it speedily: interpreting this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of His servants the prophets.” Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York, NY: Penguin Classics, 2004), 286. The identity of the “Teacher of Righteousness” is understood to be the founder of the Qumran community and, to him, “the end of days is the present, the realization of all that has been foretold by the ancient prophecy… this type of identification is sometimes called fulfillment interpretation or exegesis.” Timothy H. Lim, “Eschatological Orientation and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher,” JNES 49, no. 2 (1990): 185, http://www.jstor.org/stable/545741. Fourthly, there was the allegorical school, the so-called Alexandrian preferred method of interpretation, championed by Philo of Alexandria. Although his exegesis was not entirely allegorical, James N. Rhodes, “Allegory,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 324. it is not without reason that he would become the titleholder of Hellenistic Judaism by his reading the O.T. through the lens of a Greek philosopher: It happens then, that [Cain and Abel represent] two opinions contrary to and at variance with one another; the one of which commits everything to the mind as the leader of all reasoning, or feeling, or moving, or being stationary; and the other, attributing to God all the consequent work of creation as his own. Now the symbol of the former of these is Cain, which name, being interpreted means, “possession,” from his appearing to possess all things; and the symbol of the other is Abel; for this name, being interpreted, means “referring to God.” (3) Now both these opinions were brought forth by one soul. Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo, Complete and Unabridged, trans. C. D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 94. Themes As it was mentioned above, the hermeneutical presuppositions of Second Temple Jewish exegesis school not only consist of using similar hermeneutical approaches to the text of Scripture, but also recognizing how themes developed throughout this period effectively impacted the N. T. writers. Of special interest are those theological motifs that were not developed (at least fully) in the O. T., but that appear in the New Testament writings as common knowledge (for both the writer and his audience). In the following examples, the N. T. reader will begin to recognize how some of the most known themes to him, were not produced in a vacuum: they were integral developments of the so-called deuterocanonical (and also pseudepigraphal, among other) writings. Firstly, the theme of a future corporal resurrection. Although present in very arguably few texts in the canonical writings of the Old Testament (Daniel 12:2 being the most unambiguous example), John J. Collins, “Death and Afterlife,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 525. it was not until later writings that the resurrection motif reached a more eschatological maturation in the minds of the Jewish community: With his last breath he said: “You accursed fiend, you are depriving us of this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to live again forever, because we are dying for his laws” … When he was near death, he said, “It is my choice to die at the hands of mortals with the hope that God will restore me to life; but for you, there will be no resurrection to life... Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shaped the beginning of humankind and brought about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law. (II Maccabees 7:9, 14, 23 NABR) Though this is the most notable example of belief in bodily resurrection after death, there are many other examples where the issue of future resurrection or life is expanded, such as in Wisdom of Salomon, IV Ezra, The Book of the Watchers, among others. It has to be noted, however, that depictions of post-mortem life in Second Temple Judaism is far from monochromatic, for “each literary work containing a ‘life-after-death’ view seems to present a unique perspective.” J. A. Sigvartsen, Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs In the Apocrypha and Apocalyptic Literature (New York, NY: T&T CLARK, 2019), 183–84. As an example, the Essenes (sectarian sect in Qumran) believed that “bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal and continue forever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement.” Flavius Josephus, The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian, Vo. 2, trans. William Whiston (Cambridge, London: 1737), 154, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-2.html. Secondly, the theme of the Devil. It is true that the Hebrew Bible makes references to demons and the Devil (Deut. 32:17, Ps. 106:37, 1 Sam. 16:23, Job 1, and others) but questions regarding his or their origin are left unanswered. Esther Eshel and Daniel C. Harlow, “Demons and Exorcism,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 531. Second Temple literature will endeavor to answer such intricacies, especially as seen in 1 Enoch. Particularly pertaining to the figure of The Devil (in New Testament terms), amplified by Jesus and Paul, we read “For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us. But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are allied with him experience it.” (Wisdom of Solomon, 2:23–24). This, Zaldívar notes, is the first time that the origin of evil is patently traced to the archenemy of God, the Devil; the writer of Wisdom of Solomon is making him responsible for man’s death and linking him to the serpent of the third chapter of Genesis. Zaldívar, Fuentes, 58. On the same note, it would appear that Satan in the O. T. is represented as a member of God’s council and subject to His power—not yet the independent and rival force of evil as we see him portrayed in the New Testament. Chad T. Pierce, “Satan and Related Figures,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 1197. Pierce would go on to explain The dichotomy of good and evil found its personified counterpart in unequal leaders in the respective figures of God and Satan. Accordingly, the idea in the Hebrew Bible of a sovereign God responsible for all things, both good and evil, was replaced with a celestial conflict between God and Satan as the leaders of two distinct warring camps. Thus, Satan may have partly evolved from those attributes earlier assigned to God that appeared questionable to both Jews and Christians of the Second Temple period. Pierce, “Satan,” 1198. The development of this doctrine is clearer still in some of the sectarian passages at Qumran: “And cursed is Belial for his contentious purpose and accursed for his reprehensible rule. And cursed are all the spirits of his lot for their wicked purpose … You yourself made Belial for the pit, an angel of malevolence, his dominion is in darkness, and his counsel is to condemn and convict. All the spirits of his lot—the angels of destruction—walk in accord with the rule of darkness, for it is their only desire.” Michael O. Wise, Martin G. Abegg Jr, Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2005), 146. Thirdly, the theme of an apocalyptic Messiah. This theme is fairly presented throughout the Hebrew Bible, as the promised future prophet in Deuteronomy 18:18, the future king prophesied in II Samuel 7:12, and the future governor of Israel of Micah 5:2. Nevertheless, this theme is advanced and expanded in the pseudepigrapha, which will greatly contribute to its development in Jews and Christians living during the first century of the Christian era. Of particular interest is the following passage: And in that place, I saw the fountain of righteousness which was inexhaustible: And around it were many fountains of wisdom; and all the thirsty drank of them, and were filled with wisdom, and their dwellings were with the righteous and holy and elect. And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name before the Head of Days. Yea, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, His name was named before the Lord of Spirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the Gentiles, And the hope of those who are troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him.” H. R. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004), https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_2.HTM. (I Enoch 48:1–4; 51:1–4) It is of great value to the N. T. student to see how the collective intellectual mind was being prepared, and how the tone was being set, towards both a monotheistic and yet worshipful acclamation of the Messiah. The Son of Man is not given an inferior category with respect to the Lord of Spirits: he is situated in by His side on the throne and is to be worshipped by all. Zaldívar, Fuentes, 79. Biblical examples Notwithstanding emphases may differ from author to author and much more could be said in favor or against the aforementioned themes—that is, their impact on N. T. writers as they developed their theology—it seems to be an undeniable fact that the writers of the New Testament were sons of their literary period, and their theology was not created in a vacuum. But those arguing in favor of a Second Temple Jewish hermeneutic do not only imply a recurrence on themes, but also, as it was briefly introduced above, that those who penned the N. T. used the exegetical tools of this period when interpreting and quoting the Old Testament Scriptures. For the purpose of this introductory essay, two examples will suffice. First, we will consider how the apostle Paul treats and interprets a very well-known Abrahamic covenant text in Genesis. As he is writing to Christians under the oppressive Judaizers in Galatia and making the point that converted Gentiles are just as sons of Abraham as their Jewish counterparts, he says: “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many, but referring to one, ‘And to your offspring,’ who is Christ…  But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith… And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:16, 26, 29 ESV). The apostle seems to be quoting Genesis 22:17-18: “I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice” (Genesis 22:17–18 ESV). The underlying question that any student of the N. T. must ask himself is how Paul can ethically reach his conclusion through this interpretation; otherwise, it could sound as proof-texting prima facie. The Sitz im Leben of the Abrahamic covenant and promise does not seem to be a purely messianic promise on its own. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that the original author was overthinking the precise number of the noun זַרְעֲךָ֙ as singular to stress the singularity of a future coming Messiah. Just like any collective noun, the word “your seed” seems to be carrying a plural meaning in its original context. As Peter Enns put it, “it is clear that, in the context of the promises in Genesis, zera’ has an undeniably singular meaning.” Enns, “Fuller Meaning,” 181. If Enns is right, then there is a powerful irony here: the Judaizers did interpret the word as plural in its original context—the seed referring to the future tribes of Israel—but Paul, albeit creatively, rejects that interpretation, explaining that it could not mean the tribes of Israel because the word was used in singular; thus, it referred to Christ. Enns, “Fuller Meaning,” 182. Although biblical commentators do suggest that zera’ could imply some flexibility, referring both singularly to David and collectively to Israel, “the addition ‘through your seed’ (zera’, ‘offspring,’ NIV) in v. 18, not found in the earlier expressions (12:3; 18:18), in context appropriately reflects the preservation of Isaac, the “offspring” of promise”. K. A. Matthews, “Genesis 11:27–50:26,” in The New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 298-299. Wenham, in his World Bible Commentary, also takes this in its natural plural sense, referring to Abraham’s descendants. Gordon Wenham, “Genesis 16–50,” in Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Inc, 1994), 111. In our modern era, Paul’s approach would be akin to twisting a verse or even be charged as eisegesis; however, this was not as surprising to the apostle’s contemporary approach to hermeneutics. In other words, Paul seems to be using one of the rabbinical exegetical he was trained in, midrash. As Bakhos explains, “Many of the methods and literary forms used in interpreting nonlegal biblical verses have to do with philological play, for indeed the play on words is one of the main features of rabbinic exegesis. The rabbis were punsters par excellence, and their aural acuity allowed them to move with great facility.” Bakhos, “Midrash,” 946. Second, we will briefly consider Matthew’s hermeneutical approach to the Hebrew Bible. Matthew’s words in his Gospel are “and [he] remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I called my son’” (Matthew 2:15 ESV), quoting Hosea “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (Hosea 11:1 ESV). How Matthew is allowed to read the O. T. prophet and see Christ as a fulfillment, is and has been hotly debated. Enns, “Fuller Meaning,” 200. Furthermore, it is widely known that there is not only one way of understanding the concept of fulfillment in the Gospels. Nevertheless, it would seem—again, prima facie—that Matthew does interpret Hosea to have been at least prophetical in his words in particular reference to the Messiah: otherwise, the suasive power of quoting him to prove Christ is the expected king of the Jews, would be almost lost. Now, it is true that Matthew establishes an Israel typology in his Gospel; J. Nolland, “Matthew 2:15,” in The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on The Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 123. thus, Jesus is in fact presented as the true Israel; Israel’s story becomes the Jesus story. The issue, nevertheless, is still not easily resolved, for the Sitz im Leben in Hosea is Israel’s deliverance of Egypt as a sharp and ignominious contrast to her subsequent idolatry, which has nothing to do with Christ (Hosea 11:2–7). It would seem more likely that Matthew’s exegesis of Hosea is not primarily contextual—but that he is reading it with a fulfillment theme in mind; that is, using a Pesher hermeneutic. As it was aforementioned, this method of contemporizing O. T. and applying it to the author’s time (who believes to be at the end of the age) is widely attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tzoref, “Pesharim,” 1050. Second Temple literature, especially as seen in Qumran texts, was fond of eschatologizing of O. T. texts, as it was seen in the Habakkuk quote above. This consisted in “rather than beginning with a biblical text and then seeking to contemporize it, they began from outside the texts and used those texts principally to support their extrabiblical stance … The New Testament writers used biblical materials, in the main, to highlight the theme of fulfillment [in Jesus].” Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 27. This, in turn, would allow Matthew (and others, such as John the Baptist or Jesus himself) to use the Hebrew Bible as a clear guide to the Messiah, even if particular texts, in their original contexts, did not speak of Jesus of Nazareth: now, they do. Enns, “Fuller Meaning,” 202. Strengths and Weaknesses The study of Second Temple Jewish exegesis and their respective texts can be greatly rewarding and helpful for the New Testament student in at least two ways. Two possible weaknesses or pitfalls will be discussed subsequently. First of all, it aids the interpreter with situating the human authors of the N. T. in and within their literary context. It has been argued that no human writing has ever happened devoid of a framework; communication would be impossible without shared presuppositions. Just as fully grasping the creation account in the first chapter in Genesis—and its emphases—can be perplexing without the backdrop of other A. N. E. cosmogonies, reading the New Testament on its own terms will become illusive to the student if hundreds of years of literary production in the Jewish communities are irresponsibly ignored. Themes such as a future bodily resurrection, the Devil (and angelology in general) and an apocalyptic Messiah who is identified with a worshipful Son of Man—inter alia—were conceptually received by a first century community that had been developing them for at least two hundred years before the advent of Christ. Understanding, furthermore, how the writers during this period did hermeneutics, will help the N. T. student realize that the inspired writers did not necessarily share his own interpretative conventions and rules. Secondly, this hermeneutic logically insists on bringing back the Jesus-centrism of early Christian preaching and teaching. Because a Pesher hermeneutic is presupposed as the framework of the early disciples’ understanding of the Hebrew Bible, modern interpreters and expositors should force themselves to read the O. T. as a post-resurrection Christian, not as a pre-messianic Israelite. This is what Enns calls a Christotelic reading of the Old Testament; in other words, it consists of exegeting the Hebrew Bible as one would when rereading a novel for the second time: already knowing the end. Enns, “Fuller Meaning,” 213. Without this eschatological or fulfillment bias, one may fall in the trap of exegeting and applying the Old Testament as if Christ had not fulfilled it (cf. Luke 2:25–27). Inherent to the strength of this school, however, are some weaknesses or corners that should be avoided. First of all, is the impracticality of this type of hermeneutic for the present day. One thing is to be able to recognize how the writers of the N. T. used stock language and common exegetical practices amply accepted in their day; saying we could or should attempt the same is a whole different game. Even Longenecker and Enns, after making their case, caution: this should not be practiced at home. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 198. Though this can be understood as a desire to avoid arbitrary eisegesis, it is very puzzling indeed and can leave the student thinking he is back to square zero. One is left with the feeling—albeit somehow unfair—that the apostles had an irreproducible way of understanding and preaching the Old Testament; if that was the case, it would almost make the Christian message self-defeating. How can one reproduce something that should not be reproduced? Secondly is the issue—also present in Old Testament diachronic studies—of so-called parallelomania. If the interpreter becomes too biased regarding the influence Second Temple literature allegedly had on N. T. writers, he could fall into a twofold trap. On the one hand, he will tend to assume similarity always demands dependency; on the other hand, one can be too quick to assume similarity altogether. This, in turn, could bend the student’s arm toward an external exegesis before a more immediate, internal exegesis. In other words, he will feel the urge (and temptation) to explain a Pauline expression through different Second Temple writings, without first doing his homework through the actual canonical writings of Paul. Conclusion Second Temple Jewish exegesis, as a hermeneutical school, proposes that the correct way to interpret the New Testament canonical writings is to approach and interpret them as a product of Second Temple Judaism, and bases this thesis on assuming a thematic and exegetical practices continuum and dependency. It seems to be safe to assume that the New Testament writers did not pen their works in a literary vacuum; furthermore, there is ample proof that themes and hermeneutical practices during this period were—at least in some respect—picked up by them as they wrote and expanded their message and theology (and their respective emphases). Nevertheless, caution should be shown against the temptation of favoring an external exegesis over against a more immediate, internal, and synchronic approach to interpretation. The New Testament, though situated in a specific literary context, seeks to be read as sui generis and on its own terms, for it is the received revelation of Jesus Christ through the mediacy of the apostles and their companions—not just as a regurgitation and reaccommodating of common themes of the era. Works Cited Alexandria, Philo of. The Works of Philo, Complete and Unabridged. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Charles, H. R. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004. https://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/enoch/ENOCH_2.HTM. Collins, John J. and Harlow, Daniel C., ed. The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. Enns, Peter. “Fuller Meaning, Single Goal.” In Three Views on the New Testament Use of The Old Testament, edited by Stanley N. Gundry, Kenneth Berding, Jonathan Lunde, 167– 217. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008. Grudem, Wayne. Doctrina Bíblica: Enseñanzas esenciales de la fe cristiana. Miami, FL: Editorial Vida, 2005. Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002. Ishmael, Rabbi. Mekhilta De Rabbi Ishmael. Translated by Jacob Z. Lauterbach. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004. Josephus, Flavius. The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus, the Jewish Historian, Vo. 2. Translated by William Whiston. Cambridge, London, 1737. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-2.html. Lim, Timothy H. “Eschatological Orientation and the Alteration of Scripture in the Habakkuk Pesher.” JNES 49, no. 2 (1990): 185, http://www.jstor.org/stable/545741. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Matthews, K. A. “Genesis 11:27–50:26.” In The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996. Nolland, J. “Matthew 2:15.” In The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on The Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005. Sapir, Edward. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace, 1921. Sigvartsen, J. A. Afterlife and Resurrection Beliefs in the Apocrypha and Apocalyptic Literature. New York, NY: T&T CLARK, 2019. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. New York, NY: Penguin Classics, 2004. Wenham, Gordon. “Genesis 16–50.” In Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word Inc, 1994. Wise, Michael O., Abegg Jr, Martin G. and Cook, Edward. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2005. Zaldívar, Raúl. Las Fuentes Que Dieron Origen al Nuevo Testamento. Viladecavalls, Barcelona: Editorial CLIE, 2020. 2 1