Meditations, Musings and Memorial Stones

AVANIM :: Ex Libris :: Milton Terry: Biblical Hermeneutics :: 3.1 - Ancient Jewish Exegesis

3.1 - Ancient Jewish Exegesis

May 15, 2005 | Comments: 1

Biblical Hermeneutics Part Third Chapter 1

Terry begins his final major section on the history of biblical interpretation with an overview and discussion of ancient Jewish exegesis from Ezra to Philo. But first he points out the value of this entire study to the interpreter, namely that by tracing the influences through history which have led to misunderstandings of God’s Word, the exegete is often preserved from hermeneutical errors, and is better equipped to recognize new deviations when they arise.

The formal study and exposition of the scriptures began with Ezra and his contemporaries after the Exile (Ezra 7.10, Nehemiah 8.1-8). Out of his commitment to study, teach and practice the Law of God arose the synagogue, and the classes of authorized expounders of Scripture, who came to be known as lawyers (???) and scribes. These men were responsible for the systematic reading and exposition of the Scriptures, but they also endeavored to make a “hedge” around the law. This resulted in the development of the Halachah and Hagadah, the legal and homiletic exegesis, respectively. These were regrettably characterized by a superstitious reverence for the actual letters of the text, and methods of exposition focusing on the allegorical and mystical, and the employment of incidental stories, parables and legends.

These commentaries were eventually preserved in the Talmud in two sections: the Mishna or Second Law, which is the collection of the Halachic and Hagadic commentaries current at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, and the Gemara, which is actually a commentary on the Mishna. These show no apparent regard for the plain meaning of the writing, the scope of the author, or the integrity of Scripture as a whole. At the time of their compilation Philo of Alexandria exemplified this kind of mystical and allegorical interpretation which then sought to meld the sacred texts with Hellenistic philosophy. This approach to Scripture is not surprisingly condemned by our Lord, and His apostle (Matthew 15.1-10, Mark 7.4-13, Colossians 2.8, et al.).

Comments

What caused this tradition of interpretation to occur. Was the plain meaning to painful? Were the lawyers seeking to preserve Judaism by hiding the strong statements of the prophets? Nathan.


Nathan on June 07, 2005 at 11:46 AM

Post a comment


(required, but not displayed)

(optional)


(required)