11 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell, this is what I get for wandering into NT territory... I belong as a midrashist of the Hebrew scriptures.
Thanks for the response. In all honesty it does not really suprise me that the word "logos" has so many various meanings. After all, if God were to be equated with its meaning, I would not expect a one word simplistic meaning. However, I am not sure how this changes what scripture says in regards to it being God's word. Do keep in mind that Christ went ar ...[text shortened]... stament verbatum. He did not ever seem to take liberties with the words of those scriptures.
Now, the author of the gospel of Matthew seems to me to be an excellent midrashist. Paul was a profound midrashist (he apparently could quote from the Hebrew texts, the Greek Septuagint, or the Aramaic Targums (aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures), depending on which version gave strongest support to his argument.
We moderns seem to have lost this sense of reading into the text, of bringing our torah to the Torah—it is in that engagement that the true Torah is composed; the Torah that is not yet complete because our torahs are not yet complete.
In the NT, the word that most captures the essence of “Torah,” as I use it above, is logos. The written logos is not the whole logos. It is the logos that was manifest in Jesus, and is manifest in you. It is the logos that is continually manifest.
“That God should have clothed himself in our nature is a fact that should not seem strange or extravagant to minds that do not form too paltry an idea of reality...that God is all in all; that he clothes himself with the universe, and at the same time contains it and dwells in it.
“If then all is in him and he is in all, why blush for the faith that teaches us that one day God was born in the human condition, God who still today exists in humanity?
“Indeed, if the presence of God in us does not take the same form now as it did then, we can at least agree in recognizing that he is in us today no less than he was then.”
—St. Gregory of Nyssa
EDIT: Jesus did not always quote the Hebrew scriptures verbatim; he sometimes added his own "spin." Compare, for example, Deuteronomy 6:5 with Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by kirksey957LMAO! Hilarious! A Revered Kirksey classic! Right up there with the guy who wouldn't drink root beer. You tell the best damn stories on this site.
I took a group of Sudanese young men there once and these kids had survived all kinds of stuff. Parents getting murdered. Seeing friends eaten by alligators and lions. People starving to death. One of them was set on fire. I've never heard of such trauma. But I tell you the truth, when these people got filled with the spirit it scared them worse ...[text shortened]... They wouldn't go back. I had to take them to lunch at Hooters just to get them to calm down.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdDeuteronomy 6:5 "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."
EDIT: Jesus did not always quote the Hebrew scriptures verbatim; he sometimes added his own "spin." Compare, for example, Deuteronomy 6:5 with Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27.[/b]
Matthew 22:37 "Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
Luke 10:27 "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself."
Now the third scripture was not acutally Jesus talking, but rather, someone who was asking if this was correct and Jesus agreed. Looking at these scriptures it appears to me that the only discrepency between the verse in Deuteronomy and Matthew is that one says to love with all your MIGHT and the other says to love with all your MIND. Is this what you are referring to as Jesus putting a spin on the Torah or are you talking about his subsequent teachings on these verses such as it being the greatest commandment etc.?
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyNo, I just meant that simple “midrashic” spin in subtly changing the words to expand the understanding. This was not (and is not) uncommon for a rabbi. I am not at all critical of it. Jesus was giving his torah on the Torah.
Deuteronomy 6:5 "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."
Matthew 22:37 "Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."
Luke 10:27 "And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and w ...[text shortened]... his subsequent teachings on these verses such as it being the greatest commandment etc.?
Some of Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees, for example, sound exactly like rabbinical argument in the Talmud. The main difference being that Jesus did not cite previous rabbis so much, but spoke more on his own authority. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of his divine nature, this also seems not surprising for a rabbi coming from Galilee (history has recorded other rabbis from Galilee).
Another interesting example is Jesus’ version of “the golden rule.” Rabbi Hillel had stated this rule earlier, but in a different way—
Rabbi Hillel: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary.” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a)
Jesus: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12; NRSV)
In Jewish tradition, it would not be necessary to say which one is “best.” They would both be appreciated—and argued over, which is another form of appreciation.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by KellyJayDeja vu all over again? Perhaps the only time you and I ever agreed on scriptural exegesis... 🙂 Where the scripture itself points beyond itself to the living spirit...
Really, tell me how that works?
Kelly
It’s interesting (and worth my pondering over): you and I don’t even understand “God” the same way (when I am willing to use that word), and our approaches to the scriptures are so different, and yet this one central point we agree on—and I do not think it’s a trivial one.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesd😵
Deja vu all over again? Perhaps the only time you and I ever agreed on scriptural exegesis... 🙂 Where the scripture itself points beyond itself to the living spirit...
It’s interesting (and worth my pondering over): you and I don’t even understand “God” the same way (when I am willing to use that word), and our approaches to the scriptures are so different, and yet this one central point we agree on—and I do not think it’s a trivial one.
Kelly
11 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI can live with him giving his Torah on the Torah. What I will say, however, is that using the original Torah verbatim is key. Granted, the Torah can have more than one meaning and any Biblical scholar worth his weight will admit as much. For example, I have read and re-read many of the same scriptures over and over both in the Torah and New Testament for years upon years. Then one day I read it again and it gives me a whole new meaning. This also occurs with studying the culture of the time. For example, you talk about the "golden rule" which is to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus was once asked who his neighbor was and he gave the example of the "Good Samaritan". The story had greater significance to me when I realized that the Samaritan should have been the natural enemy of the man in need as where the others who passed by should have been like a brother to him but simply did not want to be bothered with him and passed him by. Once I learned this I then realized that Jesus was saying that we should show love for our enemies and as well as our freinds.
No, I just meant that simple “midrashic” spin in subtly changing the words to expand the understanding. This was not (and is not) uncommon for a rabbi. I am not at all critical of it. Jesus was giving his torah on the Torah.
Some of Jesus’ arguments with the Pharisees, for example, sound exactly like rabbinical argument in the Talmud. The main differe ...[text shortened]... “best.” They would both be appreciated—and argued over, which is another form of appreciation.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhat I will say, however, is that using the original Torah verbatim is key.
I can live with him giving his Torah on the Torah. What I will say, however, is that using the original Torah verbatim is key. Granted, the Torah can have more than one meaning and any Biblical scholar worth his weight will admit as much. For example, I have read and re-read many of the same scriptures over and over both in the Torah and New Testament for ...[text shortened]... d that Jesus was saying that we should show love for our enemies and as well as our freinds.
Granted; and that is the “game,” so to speak. The Jews inherited a body of texts that David S. Ariel called “Israel’s sacred myths.” Some of those are pretty atrocious—show either Israel or God in a pretty atrocious light. Okay. So, we will bring our moral sensibilities to the texts, too, and just assume that because the text says God ordered some atrocity, that that was actually the case. There is, in midrash, a lot of reading into the texts, as well as reading out of them. I like that; I think it is spiritually valid; others do not.
(BTW, I think reading into the text is unavoidable, even for those who say they are taking the text literally at its face value—they have already brought their torah to the Torah.)
For me, however, that original text starts in Hebrew. (Greek in the NT):
Since apparently the Torah scrolls have no punctuation, and the letters are more or less evenly spaced, according to Marc-Alain Ouaknin, in The Burnt Book: Reading the Talmud—
“The Book of the beginning is illegible and meaningless. Before the book can be read, it must be composed; the reader is actually a creator. Reading becomes an activity, a production. And so an infinity of books are constantly present in the Book [Torah]. There is not one story but many stories.
“The first function of the reader is to introduce breaks between the letters to form words; between certain words to produce sentences….”
The Hebrew Scriptures appear to be a wonderful tapestry of interwoven story, myth, symbol, parable, poetry and , yes, some history (often embellished in the re-telling). Rabbinical Judaism has never rested on a literalistic reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, not even those rabbis who believed that the Torah was communicated directly by God (not a universal Jewish position). Multi-layered interpretation is not only permitted but required. Every student must “unpack” the meaning of Torah for her/himself in collaborative argument with other students called talmid torah (Torah study).
Re the Good Samaritan story—another interpretation (one that lucifershammer told me a theologian friend of his said was the original interpretation) is that we are the person in the ditch, unable to even cry to God for help, or to recognize God; and God appears in the story as the Samaritan. Now that leads to a whole other set of questions and layers. I do not propose that either of those interpretations is the “right” one, or that there aren’t others.
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdAll this is fine and good, I even agree, but it does not address the point that was brought up ealier, that we have all there is, and we will get no more.
[b]What I will say, however, is that using the original Torah verbatim is key.
Granted; and that is the “game,” so to speak. The Jews inherited a body of texts that David S. Ariel called “Israel’s sacred myths.” Some of those are pretty atrocious—show either Israel or God in a pretty atrocious light. Okay. So, we will bring our moral sensibilit ...[text shortened]... ot propose that either of those interpretations is the “right” one, or that there aren’t others.[/b]
Kelly
11 Mar 07
Originally posted by vistesdWell this opens a whole bag of worms in terms of labeling the original Torah in the realm of myth. If it is inspired by God, would God inspire a myth? A myth is inherently a falsehood of some kind, no? Could God lie? If it is not inspired by God, then it only has meaning in terms of a persons own "Torah". Then you may as well pick up an issue of Better Homes and Gardens which may show you another persons "Torah". For me if it is not inspired by God it may be interesting reading, but nothing more. I could take it or leave it depending on whether or not I agree or like what is being said.
[b]What I will say, however, is that using the original Torah verbatim is key.
Granted; and that is the “game,” so to speak. The Jews inherited a body of texts that David S. Ariel called “Israel’s sacred myths.” Some of those are pretty atrocious—show either Israel or God in a pretty atrocious light. Okay. So, we will bring our moral sensibilit ...[text shortened]... ot propose that either of those interpretations is the “right” one, or that there aren’t others.[/b]
Conversly, in Hebrews it describes God's word as a two edged sword. In other words, you may not like what is being said or understand what is being said, however, you let it cut assunder those things within you that need dealt with in order for God to work on you like a skilled surgeon with a knife. After all, we all have issues that need dealt with in some form or another. However, if these writings are merely a mortal man's own Torah then such writtings cannot claim such power. I would then not subject myself to a surgeon in whom I had no faith which would render such writings as impotent in terms of how I allowed it to effect my person.
As far as the alleged "atrocities" you mention in the Old Testament this has been a sticking point with many on these threads. I must confess that I have struggled with them as well. However, I have chosen not to throw the baby out with the dish water, so to speak as many others have done. For example, many view God wiping out an entire city as unjust despite not being there or having all the facts or the intellect to decide such matters for themselves. For example, would you say that the Mosaic law of an eye for an eye is just? If so, you might say that the Israeli conquest of the Holy Land is comparable because according to other Jewish traditions, the Caananites were the first to drive out the ancestors of the Jewish people and kill them off to unjustly inherit the land that was promised to the Jewish people. Little details such as these tend to change ones perspective on such matters, however, we tend to be quick to judge and read such stories at face value without digging deeper as to why. I guess the other option if you cannot embrace such stories as being factual but still feel the need to embrace your holy book is to refer to such stories as myths.
People scream at fundamentalists such as myself for taking portions of the Bible literally that they do not agree with, however, when it is something they can use to attack the Bible they have no problem taking such stories as the literal truth and then bashing us over the head with them. For me, when you say you read the Bible as "literal" you are merely saying that you believe the original text is correct even though it can have multiple meanings, however, there are NO myths. You then could say that the interpretations are not always correct. For example, the 6 days of creation I think have not been interpreted correctly. I do believe the earth to be billions of years old. The original words for morning and evening in Genesis can be translated as order and disorder. In Genesis 2:4 this is even hinted at by referring to the "generations" of creation. The Biblical critic of the fundamentalist would then charge that I must take the original translation and interpretation in my KJB if I claim to be a fundamentalist, however, I would charge that it is equally important, if not more important, to look at the original wording and possible translations. My critic would then charge that then nothing can be accuratly determained by reading scripture but I would charge that the deeper you study such writings the deeper understanding you get from them. I suppose you would say that my critic as well as I have our own "Torah's" on the Torah and are equally correct because there is no correct translation. I would say, however, that there is absolute truths, such as how the world began and hints are locked away in the Torah for us to pursue if we so desire. To sum up, I would say that none of us has interpreted ALL truth from the Torah correctly. After all, our intellect and reasoning abiities as finite and skewed. However, I would say God's word is a source from which ALL truth can be found if we are willing to pursue them just as Christ said, "Seek and ye shall find".
I would just like to finish by saying that prayer also helps us unlock such mysteries. If we use God's word minus God by not asking him for revelations about his word then I would agree that his word then becomes idolatry. However, I would say that you cannot divorce God from his word, neither can you divorce his word from its source. They are one in the same.