Proof-texting is a bad thing, right? It’s bad form. We’re not supposed to use an isolated section
of a text in order to support our arguments.
Doing so ignores the intent and meaning of the original text – and may
even contradict the original.
Advertisers and politicians often engage in this kind of
writing, either to sell a product or to defame their opponents. Reviews and speeches are scoured for
quotations that can be isolated from their original context and presented to
mean something else.
You could proof-text your argument for atheism with the bible by saying that “the bible itself declares that ‘there is no god.’ (Psalm 14:1)” It is true that the phrase “there is no god” is in Psalm 14:1 but the fuller context of that verse (and of psalm 14 as a whole, and of the entire book of Psalms) declares that there is, indeed, a god.
Those who make predictions about the end-times, the end of
the world, and the rapture of the church are frequently guilty of this kind of
argument. Harold Camping made a fool of
himself and his followers last year with his elaborate proof-texts “proving”
that Christ would return in May and then, upon closer examination, in October
of last year.
And yet this is precisely the kind of argument that the Gospel of Matthew
presents. The most obvious example in
Matthew is his use of Isaiah’s prophecy:
Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall name him “Emmanuel”.
and they shall name him “Emmanuel”.
Isaiah was writing to the people of his time to give them
hope, and to offer them a sign that God was with them and that God would save
them from the threats and dangers that they faced. He told them that a young woman was about to
give birth to a son and that before that child could be weaned the armies of
their enemies would be destroyed.
But when the Hebrew scriptures were later translated into the Greek language the Hebrew word for ‘young woman’ was translated with the Greek noun parthenos – ‘virgin.’ And when Matthew set out to compose his gospel he was able to use this text to develop his arguments about Jesus. He ignored the historical setting of the original prophecy and interpreted the Greek translation as a promise for the distant future. He recycled the text and turned it into something new.
But when the Hebrew scriptures were later translated into the Greek language the Hebrew word for ‘young woman’ was translated with the Greek noun parthenos – ‘virgin.’ And when Matthew set out to compose his gospel he was able to use this text to develop his arguments about Jesus. He ignored the historical setting of the original prophecy and interpreted the Greek translation as a promise for the distant future. He recycled the text and turned it into something new.
“…what Matthew does with this particular text is the kind of
thing that spiritual men and women, Jews and Christians, and visionaries such as
poets and painters, have always done with the text: they see new meanings in
it, and realize its relevance to different situations.”[i]
So my question is this:
When is proof-texting a valid method of interpretation? Why is Matthew’s proof-texting better than
Harold Camping’s?[ii]
Matthew was right and Camping was wrong. Could be that easy? Matthew and Camping are also operating from two different sets of standards when it comes to literary criticism. In Matthew's gospel, his proof textng was one of several evidences given which points to his conclusion...Camping was the evidence itself. In Matthew, it's like using the Message Bible. Camping could have used a math text just as easily.
ReplyDelete