Here , unlike Mark Mullins, Larry De Bruyen rightly distinguishes between the Haggadik midrash (based on a hermeneutic employed by Jesus and Paul) and the Halakik midrash (rejected by Jesus & Paul),  but then muddles the two. The fundamental failure to address the Midoth of the School of Hillel where Paul was trained in the New Testament (which Longenecker - his quoted scholarly source insists to be true) would (as with Mark Mullins) get his paper automatically dismissed by academic peer review in a scholarly forum or academic institution and contributes to his convoluted speculations in the issues he labeled as 1 & 2 in his propositions and  conclusions. His conspicuous avoidance of the use of the very term Midrash where it is found in scripture though ranks as absurdity.
 
1) Mr. De Bruyen  ignores the fact that since R. N. Longenecker agrees the New Testament authors knew and used Midrashic exegesis, a proper exegesis of New Testament narrative today requires that expositors recognize when the text is doing it even if we take Longenecker's view that "The apostles did it, but we cannot". Indeed, Longenecker never gives a scriptural reason why we should approach exegesis with an approach different than then one employed by the inspired authors (except as a possible implied defense church tradition). Yet even following Longenecker's position, it is necessary to accept the New Testament authors used it which Mr De Bruyen, even in citing Longenecker, denies. This is not even rational.  Repeating the same obvious error as Mark Mullins, Mr. De Bruyen then essentially draws no distinction between Midrash as hermeneutic and the much later body of midrashic writings of anonymous rabbis we  (Moriel)  have always rejected. To repeat the documented error of his associate Mark Mullins in a follow up article  is ridiculous. To associate us with much later rabbinic writings w have actively rejected is dishonest.

2) Mr. De Bryen's  efforts to associate Midrash with Wellhausen's JEDP theory of Pentateuchal sources are frankly silly. No midrashic literature postulates anything resembling this or even remotely approaching the source criticism that stemmed from 19th century German rationalism and higher criticism. What impresses me here is that instead of blatantly and deliberately stating untrue claims as Mark Mullins does , Mr. De Bruyen from an academic perspective makes himself appear to be a charlatan out to impress only readers not versed  concerning  the subject being addressed. Linking JEDP with midrash is ludicrous and without any foundation whatsoever. It is a preposterous invention of Mr. De Bruyen's own inexpert imagination.

3) The conservative Evangelical scholars who have argued for the use of Midrashic exegesis in the New Testament such as John Lightfoot and Bildrebeck and Strauss moreover predate the folly of most of the contemporary Hebrew Roots Movement by generations and in the case of Lightfoot by centuries. Mr. De Bruyen's remarks are therefore ludicrous and devoid of any factual basis. He appears to just make it up as he goes along.

4) Mr. De Bruyen's misstatements about lack of evidential material reveal a willingness to ignore major portions of the Book of Revelation using pesher interpretation as well as Galatians 4, the Matthean  Formula Citations etc. as well as parallelisms in Sitz im Leben between Gospel narratives and the Dead Sea Scrolls. All of this demonstrates a lack of scholarly credibility and general unfamiliarity with the subject he misrepresents himself as having a competence in except what he has gleaned from quoted scholars whom he plainly does not understand.. His failure to address Jude's pesher style use of Apocryphal sources as historical reference likewise go without inclusion as do the use of the term by Jesus in John 5 which was correctly referenced even by Philip Powell.. It appears as if that if something in God's Word does not fit the man made narrative to which Mr. De Bruyen chooses to subscribe (imagining the constructed narrative to be of divine authorisation), he ignores it as if that negates the reality of it.

5) Most seriously of all however, Mr. De Bruyen, does this to the point of ignoring the use of the term "MIDRASH" in the Old Testament and its Greek equivalent term in the New Testament and Septuagint. His evident lack of knowing the original biblical languages in itself, (like Mark Mullins),  indicates he has taken on a subject over his head. Even more drastic still is that Inspired biblical content overtly stated should always  be our starting point. Even Mark Mullins, although plainly ignorant of the original languages and failing to compare scripture with scripture, did not dodge the fact that the term Midrash is scriptural and is employed in scriptural text. We cannot moreover just delete The Book of Chronicles as an unacceptable source if it doesn't fit our pet narrative.

I have read irresponsible and ignorant comment on this subject before. Mr. De Bruyen does not fabricate with an aim to mislead the readers like Mark Mullins, he rather just ignores the scriptures not suitable to his argument altogether.

Half of what Mr. De Bruyen states, (I assume copied from books) is true. Half is not. The absolute essentials that are the crux of the matter however , namely the Midoth (which Mark Mullins does address, but does not tell the truth about in his mal-citations of David Instone Brewer) is the first omitted essential. , The second omission is the biblical uses of the term "Midrash"  itself noted both by Philip Powell (prior to writing a self contradictory article effectively calling himself a heretic) and by Mark Mullins (who being ignorant of Greek and Hebrew failed to note how 2 Chronicles 9 defined 'The Midrash of Iddo"). What Larry De Bruyen has done is akin to writing a historical piece on the English Civil War and not mention Cromwell, Charles I, or the Battle of Naseby. At least Martk Mullins, despite his dishonesty and botched mishandling of scripture had the common sense to focus on the central issue of Midoth and take the scriptural use of the term Midrash into account. Mr De Bruyen simply ignores what the text of Holy Writ says about Midrash and, in the character of Mark Mullins who also ignores the position of his own cited expert, ignores that RN Longenecker verifies Paul's use of the Midoth and the presence of midrashic hemeneutics in the Gospels.

My offer to debate Mr. Bruyen's colleague  Mark Mullins publicly stands. I can prove (in court if necessary should he seek to litigate in the USA in defiance of 1 Corinthians 6) that Mark Mullins is guilty of deliberate intellectual and factual dishonesty, even as one professing to be a saved Christian, in that he sought to mislead his readers. Even after being furnished with documented proof that his own cited expert believed the opposite to what Mr. Mullins falsely contended,  Mr. Mullins responded with an e mail asserting that he stood by a series of statements for publication  documented to be false. Mark Mullins is indeed a deceiver who set out to mislead believers in Jesus and he can be proven in writing to be so. Larry De Bruyen however is not a liar,  but a mere charlatan and a pseudo academic fraud. .

I will be in Australia in July and I am prepared to publicly debate Mr. De Bruyen in front of a video camera and in the presence of an independent Greek and Hebrew graduate and further show Mr De Bruyen to be the obvious fraud he has openly displayed himself to be.

 May The Lord raise up another voice for the upholding of biblical truth in an era of eschatological apostasy in Australia & New Zealand. One thing is for certain - Philip Powell  no longer has such a voice. He is too preoccupied manipulating weaker personalities than his own to wage pettie surrogate wars on his behalf against his ex comrads because he no longer appears to have the heart or the stomach for the real fight.

We are moreover disappointed in Herescope for giving avenue to Mr. De Bruyen's ignorant folly,  but not entirely surprised. It is only ministries to other women that should be headed women; Herescope is therefore fundamentally out of God's order. There is indeed a needed place for discernment cum watchmen ministries as a function of congregations and churches, but not as an independent entity carried on by busy body women blogging away on websites imagining they are providing a service to The body of Christ when in fact their activity and structure are devoid of any biblical mandate. Discernment is indeed found in scripture, but where is a "Discernment Ministry" found?  Bill Randles Pastors a Church, Moriel has churches, missions,  evangelism and a teaching ministry and takes care of impoverished and sick Third World children and works with the persecuted church. But where does a ministry like Herescope obtain its biblical license? .

JJ PRASCH