For my book report project, I'm reading a book called Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, by Marcus Borg. In one of the chapters, Reading the Prophets Again, he gives an overview of the prophets, their significance, and then how they play a role in the Gospel.
It's fascinating.
He discusses the former prophets, Joshua, Judges I and II, and I and II Kings. These prophets narrated the history of Israel from the occupation of the promised land until the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BC. He also discusses the latter prophets and the distinctions between Major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) and the 12 Minor prophets including Hosea, Zaechariah, and Obadiah.
The fascinating part though, is how he interprets the way the prophets are used in the Gospel according to Matthew. Matthew includes Old Testament prophecies in the New Testament story of Jesus. One might claim that the correspondence between the New Testament and passages from the Hebrew Bible indicate that the prophets correctly predicted the coming of Jesus, and those prophets must have been divinely influenced. It seems sensible, but Borg claims otherwise. He believes the correspondence is a result of prophecy historicized, not a product of prediction and fulfillment. The New Testament used passages from the Hebrew Bible to generate historical narrative.
It's so interesting how the historical and literary context of the Bible can completely turn around a perspective on historical fact in the Bible. It makes me question how much of the Bible is factual. Is this a true historical account? or is it simply an attempt to generate historical narrative?
No comments:
Post a Comment