COMPARATIVE HERMENEUTICS OF THE USE OF THE QUOTATION HOS. 11:1 IN MAT. 2:15

Annotation

This article discusses the problem of how Hosea 11:1 is quoted in the Gospel of Matthew 2:15. The purpose of the study is to analyze contemporary ways of explaining Matthew’s hermeneutics and identify gaps in comparative studies of the Christian, Jewish and Middle Eastern religions. The research is based on a comparative approach and philosophicaltheological analysis. Discussions on whether the hermeneutics of Matthew 2:15 conform with the requirements of the historical- critical method have taken place since the second half of the 20th century. Opinions of Biblical scholars are divided. A historical- critical analysis shows that Matthew ignores the author’s intention of Hos. 11:1. Several explanation possibilities are offered as an alternative to the historical- critical method. Firstly, a traditional Christian approach that ignores the historical- critical method, secondly, a conservative historical- grammatical approach based on a synthesis of traditional and historical- critical methods, thirdly, a liberal historical- critical approach, fourthly, a traditional Jewish approach and, finally, a mythological Middle Eastern approach, based on a comparison of Jewish hermeneutics and Middle Eastern divination. The fifth approach uses S. Noegel’s concept, which assumes similarities between Jewish hermeneutics and Near Eastern divination. According to K. Bаеk, Matthew uses elements of the hermeneutics of divination and not the historical- critical method. Divination uses a non-philological interpretation based on random meanings and coincidences between the Tanakh and the events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Instead of the common view of the Gospel through the prism of Modernity, it is proposed to turn for help to the mythological paradigm of the ancient Near East.

Keywords

historical- critical method, historical- grammatical method, traditional method, Jewish hermeneutics, Matthew 2:15, Hosea 11:1, Middle Eastern divination

Literature

1. Borg, M. J. Pervoe Rozhdestvo: Chto na samom dele govorjat evangelija o rozhdenii
Iisusa [The first Christmas: What the Gospels really teach about Jesus’s birth] / M. J. Borg,
J. D. Crossan. Мoscow, Jeksmo Publ., 2009, 304 p. (in Russian).
2. Derevenskij, B. G. Iisus Hristos v dokumentah istorii [Jesus Christ in the documents
of history]. 4th ed. Saint Petersburg, Aletejja Publ., 2001, 570 p. (in Russian).
3. Kaiser, W. C.-Jr. Na puti k jekzegeticheskomu bogosloviju [Toward an exegetical
theology]. Saint Petersburg, Hristianskoe obshhestvo “Biblija dlja vseh” Publ., 2008, 287 p.
(in Russian).
4. Thiselton, A. C. Germenevtika [Hermeneutics]. Cherkassy, Kollokvium Publ., 2011,
430 p. (in Russian).
5. Steinsaltz, А. Vvedenie v Talmud [Introduction to the Talmud]. Ierusalim, Izrail’skij
institut talmudicheskih publikacij, institut izuchenija iudaizma v Rossii Publ., 1993, 381 p.
(in Russian).
6. Stern, D. Kommentarij k evrejskomu Novomu zavetu [Jewish New Testament
Commentary]. Moscow, Siloam, 2004, 1156 p. (in Russian).
7. Baek, K. Re-reading the Gospel of Matthew: Scripture in the Hands of the King’s
Scribe. PhD thesis, The University of Manchester, 2016, 215 p. (in English).
8. Basser, H. W., Cohen M. B. The Gospel of Matthew and Judaic Traditions: A RelevanceBased Commentary. Brill Academic Publishers, 2915, Xxii+794 p. (in English).
9. Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament use of the Old Testament: exegesis and
interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012, 192 p. (in English).
10. Beale, G. K. Did Jesus and the Apostles Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong
Texts? Revisiting the Debate Seventeen Years Later in Light of Peter Enns’ Book, Inspiration
and Incarnation. In: Themelios, 2006, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 18–43 (in English).
11. Blomberg, C. L. The Historical- Critical / Grammatical View. In: Biblical Hermeneutics:
Five Views / S. E. Porter, B. M. Stovell (eds.). Downers Grove, Illinois, Intervarsity Press, 2012,
pp. 27–47 (in English).
12. Enns, P. Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving
Beyond a Modernist Impasse. In: Westminster Theological Journal, 2003, vol. 65, pp. 263–287
(in English).
13. Gaffin, Jr. R. B. The Redemptive- Historical View. In: Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views /
S. E. Porter, B. M. Stovell (eds.). Downers Grove, Illinois, Intervarsity Press, 2012, pp. 89–110
(in English).
14. Gaffin, Jr. R. B. The Redemptive- Historical Response. In: Biblical Hermeneutics: Five
Views / S. E. Porter, B. M. Stovell (eds.). Downers Grove, Illinois, Intervarsity Press, 2012,
pp. 174–187 (in English).
15. Kaiser, W. C.-Jr. The Uses of the Old Testament in the New. Chicago, Moody Press,
1985, 287 p. (in English).
16. McCasland, S. V. Matthew twists the Scriptures. In: Journal of Biblical Literature, 1961,
vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 143–148 (in English).
17. Noegel, S. B. “Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign”: Script, Power, and Interpretation in
the Ancient Near East. In: Divination and the Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World /
Annus A. (ed.). (Oriental Institute Seminars 6). Chicago. Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago, 2010, pp. 143–162 (in English).
18. Pickup, M. New Testament Interpretation of the Old Testament: The Theological
Rationale of Midrashic Exegesis. In: The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2008,
vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 353–381 (in English).
19. Soloveitchik, E. Z. The Bible, the Talmud, and the New Testament: Elijah Zvi
Soloveitchik’s Commentary to the Gospels / S. Magid (ed.). Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2019, 427 p. (in English).
20. Wall, R. W. (2012). The Canonical View. In: Biblical Hermeneutics: Five Views /
S. E. Porter, B. M. Stovell (eds.). Downers Grove, Illinois, Intervarsity Press, 2012, pp. 111–132
(in English).