What is the relationship between how the early church read Scripture and that of say Alexandrian Judaism or later Rabbinic Judaism? Well, it’s complicated. Richard Hays provides a warning in Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (p. 11) that I thought should be repeated here for those seeking to better understand such relationships. He writes,
“Rabbinic Judaism, no less than early Christianity, represents (along with the Qumran community and Philo’s scholastic Alexandrian Judaism, inter alia), one of several different adaptations of the religious and cultural heritage represented by Israel’s Scriptures. These different adaptations should be studied, at least initially, as parallel phenomena, related but distinct dispositions of that heritage, To argue that one of these phenomena represents a source or influence for another is likely to be misleading unless some documentable lines of historical dependance can be demonstrated. One thing that is clearly documentable is that all of them deliberately regard Scripture as source and authority for their own quite different theological developments.
This is especially important to ponder when we read someone saying “Paul is doing ‘midrash’ here” or other statements that categorize one branch using systematic structures of another. Yes, it is likely that these branches look similar because they are part of the same tree, but the branches are not dependent on each other.
the archives near Emmaus 
@Brian,
So what do you think about a “Christian” hermeneutic, Brian; one wherein we can “supposedly” mimic/model the NT writer’s usage, quotation, and appeal to the OT. Do you believe this is possible? And beyond that, do you think this is a desirable way for constructing a hermeneutical model (Covenant exegetes often call this the “christocentric hermeneutic”)?
One problem I have with this, even though I’m prone to it, is that it is clear (as Moo has discussed) that there are real instances of sensus plenior in the NT; which to me, w/o having inspiration (and simply illumination), I’m not sure how we can appeal to a true NT herm as normative, per se. At least under these constraints.
@Bobby: I do think there is a way to develop a Christian hermeneutic. I think Hays is currently at the forefront of developing one based on how Paul and others read Scripture. That being said, I am just now tapping into it, and I think his most direct work on the subject is still forthcoming, so I don’t know how much I can speak for or define it. I do see it as possible though.
I think Lk. 24, Jn. 5, Paul, the author of Hebrews, John of Patmos, heck all the NT writers, show various ways of reading the OT as Christians. The only two principles that I can see spreading across all these authors is (1) the OT is authoritative and (2) Christ is the hermeneutical grid.
@Brian,
Yeah, this is something I worked through in sem. in my NT use of OT class. I’ve moved since then, and have definitely adopted a more theological exegetical approach, or should say Christological approach (in vein with Jn 5 Lk 24 etc). I just have a hard time though, in practice, engaging in this kind of herm. consistently. But yes points 1 and 2 are well taken (of course there is a lot of elasticity therein, eh). Btw, my son already follows point #2; after Sunday School I ask him what he learned, and his response is always, JESUS! 😉
I’ll have to check Hays out a little further then.
@Bobby: Now I know where you get it from! 😉
Although I will add that this doesn’t mean that Scripture can’t be read more than one way. I think there is a time to read Scripture “Christianly” seeing how it points to Christ, other times historically….it depends on the reason for reading and the subject discussed.
@Brian, yes my Son is a great Spirit-filled-teacher-theologian 🙂 !
I agree with you on the variation in interpretation. David Gibson in his book on Calvin and Barth provides a good analytic to read and differentiate Barth’s from Calvin’s approach to bib interpretation; for the former he calls it principial-intensive, and the latter soteriological-extensive. That breaks down pretty much down to your “Christianly” and more “salvation-historically” (Barth’s approach being Christo-centric in method and Calvin’s being Soterio-centric in method . . . so its a methodological evaluation that’s made between the two). With you, though, I don’t think this needs to be an either/or distinction; but both/and (more situational actually). If any of that makes sense 🙂 .
Agreed, both/and allows for Scripture to be read differently depending on the discussion at hand and the reason for reading (e.g. 1 and 2 Samuel will be read differently by someone preparing to give the Sunday homily than it will be by someone writing a book on ancient Israeli monarchies. The Calvin/Barth example is a good one as well.).