In a recent review of Benedict/Ratzinger’s third book about Jesus, the former pope’s hermeneutics are depicted as poisonous, in part because they are allegedly supersessionist:
And he will allow only one meaning for the Old Testament word of God, which illuminates the story, namely to point to Jesus. ‘The Old Testament contains some passages which remain ‘ownerless’ (herrenlos), as long as their ‘true owner’, that is, Christ, ‘keeps us waiting’. [G. 29: E. 17, reviewer’s emphasis, translation adapted]. The downside of this bold hermeneutical principle remains unstated: the danger that the Jews are dis-owned, which goes hand-in-hand with a Christian takeover of their Bible. What is needed here is a paradigm shift, from a view of Scripture centred on the author to one centred on the reader or the history of reception, guided by the insight that Scripture itself remains ambivalent, having diverse ‘outcomes’, both Jewish and Christian (E. Zenger). Only in this way could a christological reading of Scripture be conjoined with respect for its Jewish interpretation.
Although I am disturbed by the tone of the review, this reviewer does point to a crucial problem: how can Christians interpret the (OT) Bible with integrity, while coming to different conclusions about its meaning from Jewish readers?
This, in fact, is a topic that I will be speaking about on Monday, in a paper co-presented with my father, who is a professor of linguistics. We will be trying to grapple with what is going on when Jesus finds his Emmaus disciples to fail to perceive “all that the prophets have declared.”
Here is a little bit from our conclusion:
According to Luke’s presentation, the Christocentric interpretation of Old Testament scriptures that is initiated by Jesus is a defiantly alternative construal of the scriptures, in accordance with an alternative schema. Nevertheless, it is presented as a God-ordained and essential alternative, now that Jesus has come. This perspective thus grants space for Jewish scriptures, interpretations, and events to have their own historical integrity and richness, while still holding to a christological climax from a Christian point of view.
Following from this, the account given above frees us up from having to choose between either a hermeneutical direction that proceeds from Old Testament prophecy to New Testament fulfilment, or one that proceeds from New Testament ‘fulfilment’ to reconfigured Old Testament interpretation. The account above indicates that, according to Luke, the ‘fulfilment’ that Jesus brings comes via the reschematizing triggering event of his own coming. To simplify, Luke is neither claiming ‘this is what it had to mean back then’, nor ‘this is what it must be transformed to mean’, but rather, ‘this is what we must now come to perceive it had to mean’.
 Interestingly, this is strongly evocative of Paul’s theology. N.T. Wright comments, ‘Paul believes both that the covenant promises were at last fulfilled and that this constituted a massive and dramatic irruption into the processes of world history unlike anything before or since. And at the heart of both parts of this tension stands the cross of the Messiah, at once the long-awaited fulfilment and the slap in the face for all human pride. Unless we hold on to both parts of this truth we are missing something absolutely central to Paul.’ N.T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), p. 54.
 It would be too simplistic, then, to see here ‘a triumphalist “prophecy-fulfilment” arrangement in which the “old” is valuable only insofar as it serves as a signpost pointing to the “new”’. Matthew Myer Boulton, ‘Supersession or Subsession? Exodus Typology, the Christian Eucharist and the Jewish Passover Meal’, Scottish Journal of Theology 66/1 (2013): pp. 18-29; p. 18.