chapter eight

EPILOGUE

The interpretation of ancient writings, composed under historical cir-

cumstances vastly different from our own, is a challenging task. Mod-
ern scholarly viewpoints allow or promote reinterpreting classical works,
adapting them to our contemporary circumstances. This is accomplished
by a system which reflects various degrees of adherence to the text, the
intentio operis (to use Umberto Eco’s terms), and to the author’s presumed
original intent, the intentio auctoris, rather than understanding them
in a literal fundamental mode.1 Modern thought and the far-reaching
deconstruction methods, indeed, perceive texts as open-ended in nature,
utterly reader oriented, an absolute intentio lectoris—merely a skeleton
serving as stimuli to be complemented by the reader. But these philoso-
phers do not authorize retrojecting our contemporaneous viewpoints,
the intentio lectoris, onto the author and alleging that it agrees with his
original intent, the intentio auctoris. The determining circumstances of
the two are utterly different.
The pragmatic rabbis alleged that the omniscient God already foresaw
ad infinitum, at the creation of the Torah laws, the exact mode of their
adaptation to changing conditions, and granted the rabbis the key to deci-
pher these hidden contingencies in the text.2 However, they were con-
strained to solve the dilemma of how to adapt perpetual and immutable

1 Umberto Eco, The Limits of Interpretation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,

),  ff., envisages three interpretive methods: the intentio auctoris, an interpreta-
tion founded on the presumed intent of the author; the intentio operis, an interpretation
founded on what the text pronounces, or what can be understood from it, as an inde-
pendent element, severed from the intentions of its author and reader; and the intentio
lectoris, what the reader understands from the text according to his own cultural back-
ground, contemporary circumstances, and his own expectation.
2 A similar doctrinal concept is used by Maimonides, Guide,  (vol. II, ch. II:),

to explain rationally miracles within the ambit of nature, not as a sudden change of
nature but as foreseen by God at the Creation: “miracles too are something that is,
in a certain respect, in nature. They [the midrashim] say that when God created that
which exists and stamped upon it the existing natures, He put into these natures that
all the miracles that occurred would be produced in them at the time when they
occurred.”
 chapter eight

scriptural commands to the necessities of continually changing circum-

stances. The rabbis were compelled to devise a philosophical theory to
justify their interpretations of biblical texts, deviating from their sim-
ple meaning, and often in conflict with it, but claiming at the same time
adherence both to the text and to the lawgiver’s original intent. However,
such attempts at bridging the gap, based on preconceived ideas, can be
relevant and acknowledged only by a public with a deep religious belief.
In no way can current criteria of interpretation based on modern meth-
ods of critical reading be applied to establish the original intent of the
authors of ancient literature and its reception by its original readers. The
problems that confront evangelical theologians attempting to justify the
“out of context” interpretation of Old Testament citations in the New Tes-
tament according to our contemporary critical approach to the bound-
aries of exegesis are well known, and serve to substantiate our thesis.
The NT authors interpreted the OT citations based on preconceived
convictions deduced from other sources, a method tolerated in that
period but is unacceptable by our contemporary standards. Even they,
however, did not allege that their interpretation concurred with the orig-
inal understanding of the ancient audience. Mat : declares that the
divine pronouncement of Isa : foretold the birth of Jesus to a virgin,
but he did not contend that Isaiah’s audience at the time understood it
likewise; in reality, evidently, not even all the Israelites who heard or read
Matthew’s utterance accepted his interpretation. It is even questionable
whether Matthew alleged that Isaiah, acting as God’s mouthpiece, was
aware of this meaning of the prophecy. From the literary structure of
the text, “what the Lord had said through the prophet,” one may deduce
that he was solely transmitting God’s plan for the future. A similar cir-
cumstance in Qumran literature supports this presumption. We read in
QHab II:–, “when they hear everything that is to co[me up]on the
latter generation that will be spoken by the Priest in whose [heart] God
has put [the abil]ity to explain all the words of his servants the prophets,
through [whom] God has foretold everything that is to come upon his
people and [his] com[munity].” The author is unquestionably contending
that the original prophet Habakkuk was not aware exactly to what period
or what events his prophecy referred. And, similar to his extra-scriptural
interpretation that the Chaldeans mentioned by Hab in : are really the
Kittim, Matthew proceeded likewise in interpreting Isaiah’s prophecy as
referring to Jesus. Further, as the Qumran author affirms, the majority of
the people did not believe in the Teacher’s interpretation; the same was
true of Matthew’s exegesis in his period. These facts substantiate the the-