Reading Backwards – by Richard Hays
Summary of Basic Thesis/Argument:
Richard Hays “contend[s] that the Gospel writers summon us to a conversion of the imagination” (page 4). He explores this notion by answering the two following questions regarding the approach the writers of each of the four gospels take: how do they read Israel’s scriptures; and, how “does each one draw upon a figural interpretation of the Old Testament to depict the identity of Jesus, and to interpret his significance” (page 4). After examining each of the gospels for the answers to these questions, Hays asserts that “[t]he more deeply we probe the Jewish and OT roots of the Gospel narratives, the more clearly we see that each of the four Evangelists, in their diverse portrayals, identifies Jesus as the embodiment of the God of Israel” (page 107).
Analysis:
Hays begins his work by sketching the importance of noticing the “figural” readings of the OT presented by the Evangelists as they cite or allude to various passages of OT scripture. Hays contends that we must notice the “difference between prediction and prefiguration” when reading the NT (page 2). By prefiguration, Hays means a “retrospective recognition” of the correspondence between two texts/events with the first event or text now possessing “a new pattern of significance” and the “semantic force” of both texts now being read with enhanced significance (page 3). A “figural reading” is one that “grasps patterns of correspondence between temporally distinct events so that these events freshly illuminate each other” (page 104). Borrowing from Hans Frei, Hays maintains that a hermeneutical strategy that relies on a figural reading of the bible “creates deep theological coherence within the biblical narrative, for it ‘sets forth the unity of the canon as a single cumulative and complex pattern of meaning’” (page 3).
Hays then asks two questions: how does the OT teach us to read the Gospels; and, how do the Gospel writers “teach us to read the OT” (pages 6 and 13). To begin his quest towards an answer, he starts by examining two parables and what the significance of their OT quotes and allusions have for readers. He contends that NT authors utilize the OT to provide “both hermeneutical guidance and theological depth” (page 12). On the other hand, Hays contends that the NT authors read the story of the OT “anew in light of the story of Jesus’ death and resurrection” which “opens both text and reader to new, previously unimaginable possibilities” (page 15). Hays argues that only through using the hermeneutical strategy he proposes when engaging both the NT and OT, will the life, death and resurrection of Jesus be made intelligible to bible readers (page 16).
After laying this groundwork, Hays proceeds to examine the major themes in each of the Gospels in light of how their respective authors cite and allude to the OT. Beginning with Mark, Hays illustrates how, in a less ontologically “overt” way, that this Gospel writer shows that “Jesus is, in some way that defies comprehension, the embodiment of God’s presence” (page 19). Hays maintains that, if the “scriptural inter-texts in Mark are ignored, a diminished Christology inevitably follows” (page 28). Hence, he argues that Mark, contrary to the belief of many other scholars, does not in fact contain a “low” Christology.
In Matthew, Hays indicates that we find a “diverse and complex use” of the OT (page 38). He contends that Matthew illustrates what Rowan Williams referred to as the experience of early Christians with “profound contradictoriness, an experience that so questioned the religious categories of its time that the resulting reorganization of religious language was a centuries long task” (page 35). Hays says that this “reorganization” was a “retrospective reinterpretation of Israel’s traditions” (page 35). This reinterpretation, beginning with the birth narrative, served to establish this Gospel author’s perspective that Jesus is “Emmanuel, ‘God with us,’” who is called out of Egypt, to redeem Israel. For Hays, the “radical claim” of Matthew’s gospel is that “the one who was crucified and raised from the dead is himself the embodiment of the God who rules over all creation and abides with his people forever” (page 53).
For Luke, Hays sees the importance of a reader recognizing the “narrative mode of the presentation” as we come to know Jesus in the midst of the “echoes of Israel’s scripture” as his identity is “enacted in and through the story” (page 57). Luke differs from Matthew, in that “most of the inter-textual references are…of a second kind: implicit correspondences, suggested through the literary devices of allusion and echo” (page 58). Hays highlights Luke’s use of Isaiah 40 to “intimate” that Jesus is the coming “kurios,” and then traces the implications of other uses of that word in the Gospel. Similar to his comments regarding Matthew, Hays contends that “the ‘low’ Christology that modern NT criticism has perceived in Luke’s Gospel is an artificial construction that can be achieved only by ignoring – or suppressing – the hermeneutical relevance of the powerful Old Testament allusions in Luke’s story” (page 72).
Finally, Hays directs his attention to John’s Gospel and the themes woven throughout it that rely on OT texts and allusions to be brought into fuller clarity. Hays indicates that while this Gospel contains a smaller number of direct OT quotations, the author relies more on “evoking images and figures from Israel’s scripture” when delivering allusions, with an “inter-textual sensibility” that is “more visual than auditory” (page 78). Hays draws our attention to the beginning of this Gospel which presents Jesus as the “Word and Wisdom” in the context that echoes the creation story. Furthermore, Jesus, the “Word and Wisdom” is seen in the Gospel of John as taking “into himself the significance of the temple and its cycle of liturgical festivals” (page 85). In fact, Hays shows how this Gospel makes the claim that Jesus viewed “all of Scripture actually [bearing] witness” to himself (page 92).
Hays completes his work by summarizing his claim that the Gospel writers were “retrospective” readers of Israel’s scriptures. He maintains that “scripture is to be interpreted in light of the cross” (page 104), and we as readers must “allow [the] intertextual performances to retrain our sensibilities as readers” (page 105). In doing this, we must pay attention to “large narrative arcs and patterns in the OT, rather than treating Scripture chiefly as a source of oracles, prooftexts, or halakhic regulations (page 105). Bottom line, Hays thinks “[t]he more we deeply probe the Jewish and OT roots of the Gospel narratives, the more clearly we see that each of the Evangelists, in their diverse portrayals, identifies Jesus as the embodiment of the God of Israel” and “as mysteriously infused with the identity of God” (pages 107 and 108). These portraits in the Gospels create the “stunning paradoxes that the church’s later dogmatic controversies sought to address in order to formulate a theological grammar adequate to respect the narrative tensions inescapably posed” by these same Gospels.
Strengths/Weaknesses in the Book and Questions:
I agree with nearly all of what Hays presents in this book, and found many points to be quite helpful in thinking about how Israel’s scriptures were used by the Gospel writers. In particular, I found his description of the importance of figural readings of Israel’s scripture to be helpful and insightful as it relates to many of the specific Gospel passages that he addressed. I addition, I found food for thought in his insistence that this type of reading, rather than creating a “hostile supersessionist understanding of the relationship between Israel and the church,” will hopefully “at least clarify what is at issue…[and] encourage respectful controversy between divided communities” (page xv). I also appreciated Hays conclusion that the “high” versus “low” Christology labels are often not supported by the textual evidence seen in each of the Gospels when read in the “figural” manner that Hays encourages (pages 107 and 108).
I believe that Hays’ book contains very few weaknesses. In my opinion, the one thing that I wish he had described or provided an example of is how to read the Old Testament using OT passages not referenced or directly alluded to by the New Testament authors. He spent a great deal of time describing specific examples of how this was/is done by the NT Gospel writers (and in his earlier books, how Paul did this), but not how we can/should do this with the OT in those instances where the NT authors have not done so. Does Hays think this is appropriate? If so, how should this be done? By doing this (providing examples), he would have been able to show (rather than tell) what are the guiding hermeneutical principles that would govern this type of activity.
*(As an update – Hays does this in his more recent work – “Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels” – a wonderful book that is well worth the time…)
Todd Rivetti 