6 ms·

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world On the contrary, the atomization

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world On the contrary, the atomization and recombination of the text into new meanings is highly characteristic of Midrash. Of course, this isn't the same as the "prooftext" hermeneutic I think you're criticizing.

wcarey 6y ago
Fascinating! Do you have a good book recommendation that introduces that? It's not something I know much about.
- eeereerews 6y ago
  Here is a typical example (from Genesis Rabbah) > And Cain rose up against his brother Abel. [...] With what did he kill him? R. Simeon said: He killed him with a staff: And a young man for my bruising (Gen 4:23) implies a weapon which inflicts a bruise. The Rabbis said: He killed him with a stone: For I have slain a man for wounding me (ibid) indicates a weapon which inflicts wounds. R. 'Azariah and R. Jonathan in R. Isaac's name said: Cain had closely observed where his father slew the bullock [which he sacrificed, as it is written], And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock (Ps 69:31), and there he killed him: by the throat and its organs. From a Christian perspective, a more interesting example might be the Gospel's atomization/recontextualizations of text as Messianic prophecy ("out of Egypt I have called my son", "behold, a virgin shall be with child").
bjourne 6y ago
Even Jesus himself often referred to specific verses in the Old Testament: "Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7; cf. Luke 4:12)" "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” (Matthew 5:38)" So the Scripture must have been "Balkanized" before Christianity existed. Which is not so strange given that it served both as religion and as a code of law.
- ars 6y ago
  > You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” That's a great example, because that verse is saying only punish an eye for an eye, and not a life for an eye. It's a verse requiring proportional punishment. (On top of that it means the value of an eye, not an actual eye.) So quoting it that way actually does remove necessary understanding, which is making the OP's point.
  - goto11 6y ago
    The example shows that even Jesus quoted single verses out of context. So the assertion that this didn't happen in antiquity is clearly wrong.
  - bjourne 6y ago
    Not sure I understand what you mean? Jesus was known as a rabbi and well-versed in the Scriptures. I don't think he was misconstruing the text he was citing. Here he is contrasting his view of justice ("turn the other cheek") to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace. My main point is that Jesus was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.
    - ars 6y ago
      The meaning for the "eye for an eye" verse is well known, it's talking about proportionality in justice. It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek". > to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace. But that's exactly what "eye for an eye" attempts to stop. It's instructing people to seek appropriate justice, and not just attack people who hurt them. Using that verse, rather hurts his message amongst those who understand the verse. But it's a great way to show verses used out of context! > was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way. But they only spoke this way to other Rabbi's, never to people who did not already understand the meaning of the verse.

wcarey 6y ago

Fascinating! Do you have a good book recommendation that introduces that? It's not something I know much about.

eeereerews 6y ago
Here is a typical example (from Genesis Rabbah) > And Cain rose up against his brother Abel. [...] With what did he kill him? R. Simeon said: He killed him with a staff: And a young man for my bruising (Gen 4:23) implies a weapon which inflicts a bruise. The Rabbis said: He killed him with a stone: For I have slain a man for wounding me (ibid) indicates a weapon which inflicts wounds. R. 'Azariah and R. Jonathan in R. Isaac's name said: Cain had closely observed where his father slew the bullock [which he sacrificed, as it is written], And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock (Ps 69:31), and there he killed him: by the throat and its organs. From a Christian perspective, a more interesting example might be the Gospel's atomization/recontextualizations of text as Messianic prophecy ("out of Egypt I have called my son", "behold, a virgin shall be with child").

bjourne 6y ago

Even Jesus himself often referred to specific verses in the Old Testament: "Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7; cf. Luke 4:12)" "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” (Matthew 5:38)" So the Scripture must have been "Balkanized" before Christianity existed. Which is not so strange given that it served both as religion and as a code of law.

ars 6y ago
> You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” That's a great example, because that verse is saying only punish an eye for an eye, and not a life for an eye. It's a verse requiring proportional punishment. (On top of that it means the value of an eye, not an actual eye.) So quoting it that way actually does remove necessary understanding, which is making the OP's point.
- goto11 6y ago
  The example shows that even Jesus quoted single verses out of context. So the assertion that this didn't happen in antiquity is clearly wrong.
- bjourne 6y ago
  Not sure I understand what you mean? Jesus was known as a rabbi and well-versed in the Scriptures. I don't think he was misconstruing the text he was citing. Here he is contrasting his view of justice ("turn the other cheek") to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace. My main point is that Jesus was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.
  - ars 6y ago
    The meaning for the "eye for an eye" verse is well known, it's talking about proportionality in justice. It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek". > to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace. But that's exactly what "eye for an eye" attempts to stop. It's instructing people to seek appropriate justice, and not just attack people who hurt them. Using that verse, rather hurts his message amongst those who understand the verse. But it's a great way to show verses used out of context! > was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way. But they only spoke this way to other Rabbi's, never to people who did not already understand the meaning of the verse.