The New Testament & Paul
The New Testament
Although this work is not primarily focused on showing how the New Testament is a continuation of the Jewish Bible’s Midrashic Hermeneutics, it is important to acknowledge it. So, let us ask the question, ‘Does this kind of organization continue into the New Testament?’
The answer is a resounding, ‘Yes!’
However, there is more because the New Testament writings are Hellenistic Jewish Literature.[50] This means it is a fusion of First Century Jewish and Greek culture. The New Testament itself is written in a dialect of Greek specific to the Jewish community, known as Kione Judeo-Greek. It is the same dialect of Greek used for the Septuagint (LXX).[51] The LXX was the primary Bible used by the Jewish community outside of First Century Israel. It is the primary Bible version referenced by all the New Testament writers.
The New Testament is written for the fully committed community of Bridegroom followers who chose to make themselves ready for His return. It records crucial information needed for new and future Bridegroom followers who were not present with the Bridegroom before His ascension to be with His Father.
This is where the Apostle Paul comes in with all his teachings and reaching out primarily to non-Jewish people as his primary mission. He and the other New Testament letter writers teach that Jesus is going to come back, and we are all going to celebrate together, Jew and Gentile in the marriage supper of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. All the so-called, ‘Apostolic Letters,’ exist to prepare the Bride for the coming of the Bridegroom.
Paul: Expert Midrash Scholar.
Although any of the New Testament authors can be used as examples, let us briefly look at the Apostle Paul. Paul was the premier example of a first century Midrash expert, and he incorporated Hebrew and Kione Greek figures of speech, which he expertly incorporated into his writings.[52]
For more than 100 years now, scholars have recognized that Paul used Rabbinic Midrashic Hermeneutics (RMH) in his writings as a product of the time and culture in which he was born and raised.[53] Paul’s use of RMH predates other extensive written examples found in the Mishnah (Talmud) by 200 years. Rabbi Dan Cohn-Shebok discusses this in his introduction to his article, Paul, and Rabbinic Exegesis, Paul’s exegesis of Scripture was influenced by rabbinic hermeneutics.
For some time, scholars have recognized that Paul's exegesis of Scripture was influenced by rabbinic hermeneutics. As early as 1900, H. St. John Thackeray argued that Paul used rabbinic methods of interpretation to confute the Jews. In a number of cases, he wrote, particularly where the original sense of Scripture is not adhered to, 'we may undoubtedly see the influence of his rabbinic training in the use to which the Old Testament is put and the inferences drawn from it.'1 In 1911 H. Lietzmann described Paul's treatment of the desert sojourn in 1Cor. io.i-ii as 'the Haggadic method', implying a comparison with rabbinic method.2 Following this same line of argument A. F. Pukko in 1928 asserted that Paul utilised Hillel's seven principles of rabbinic exegesis.3 According to Pukko, 'As an interpreter of the Old Testament Paul is above all a child of his time. The methods of interpretation and deduction which he learned in the Rabbinical school emerge frequently in his work.'4 In 1931 A. Marmorstein in 'Paulus und die Rabbinen' com- pared Paul's discussion of Adam in Romans. 5.13-21 with the rabbinic treatment of the same subject. Taking it for granted that Paul's methods of interpretation and those of contemporary Judaism are the same, he pointed out a difference of theological assumptions.5 In Exegese Rabbinique el Exegese Paulinienne pub- lished in 1939 J. Bonsirven outlined various paradigms of rabbinic and Pauline exegesis. 'The philologist,' he wrote, 'who studies from a formal point of view rabbinic writings and the Pauline epistles and applies himself to point out the forms of expositions, dialectical mechanisms, and rhetorical structures, would classify without hesitation the two literatures into the same exegetical types ... St. Paul is a rabbi, become a Christian evangelist.'6 In 1944 in an examination of Paul in 'From Jesus to Paul' J. Klausner made a similar point: 'It would be difficult to find more characteristically Talmudic expositions of Scripture than those in the epistles of Paul.'7 This conclusion is reinforced by J. Doeve's study of Jewish hermeneutics in the New Testament published in 1953. According to Doeve, 'At the very moment when Paul reproaches the synagogue with their use of Scripture, he shows himself an accomplished haggadist who constructs his midrash, his Christian midrash, according to the very same method of interpretation as that followed by the synagogue.'8 In 1955 E. Ellis in 'A Note on Pauline Hermeneutics' identified the use of midrash pesher in Paul's writing,9 and continued his discussion with the publication in 1957 of Paul's Use of the Old Testament. 'Without doubt,' he wrote, 'the apostle's understanding of the Old Testament was completely revolutionised after his conversion; nevertheless his Jewish heritage remained of fundamental importance for his understanding and use of the Bible. His reverence for and study of the Scriptures long preceded his knowledge of Christ. Reading habits, methodology, and her- meneutic norms were firmly implanted by his parents, his synagogue and most of all, his teacher of rabbinics — Gamaliel.'10
In 1960, S. Amsler argued in L'Ancien Testament dans I'Eglise that Paul used the techniques of rabbinic exegesis, but he claimed that this never led him to fantastic conclusions, as was the case with the rabbis." In 1961, H. Schoeps, drawing upon A. F. Pukko's observation, argued that Paul utilized Hillel's hermeneutical rules, possibly under the tutelage of Gamaliel. 'If we may believe the Acts of the Apostles', he wrote, '(Paul) became a pupil of Rabbi Gamaliel I ... he tries with the resources of traditional rabbinic logic to gain from the text new meanings by a process of inference and combination with other texts. The methods of proof characteristic of his writings make it clear that he had learnt in the schools the seven hermeneutical rules of Hillel for the Halachah.'12 In 1967 H. Miiller identified Hillel's first principle of hermeneutics (the qal-wachomer) in Romans. 5,13 and in 1969 J. Jeremias added to this analysis by identifying Paul's use of Hillel's first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh rule. According to Jeremias, Paul was a Hillelite: (Paul's) 'brilliant mastery of the exegetic methodology of Hillel demonstrates the apostle's Hillelite training."4 Most recently A. T. Hanson in Studies in Paul's Technique and Theology wrote that, though Paul argues in a characteristically rabbinic fashion, his exegesis is restrained: 'Paul gives us plenty of Christian midrash. But he only gives us examples of the first two categories, exegesis and homily; never of the third, narrative. Most of Paul's midrash is directly exegetical; he cites the text and proceeds to draw out its implications. But sometimes he is homiletic. ... But we never find Paul himself writing narrative midrash. He only uses that of others. He is, in this respect, a sober and restrained exegete.'15
Cohn-Sherbok then presents the purpose of his article, ‘Despite these observations and studies, there has not yet appeared a detailed and extensive comparison between Paul's exegetical methods and the modes of exegesis found in rabbinic literature. The purpose of this article is to fill this gap. Based on an examination of direct and explicit exegesis and indirect exegesis in Paul's epistles and in rabbinic sources, it will be demonstrated that Paul incorporated a wide variety of traditional modes of Scriptural exegesis in the proclamation of his Christian message.’[54]
Conclusion
Since Cohn-Sherbok made his statement in 2009, there is in fact a project cataloguing Paul’s extensive and detailed exegetical method, comparing them to exegesis found in later rabbinic literature.[55]
What are the ramifications for New Testament scholarship, pastor and lay-person recognition of Ezra’s Midrashic Hermeneutics applied by New Testament authors, including Paul? To borrow from the words of Paul himself in Romans 3.1-2: ‘Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.’
The entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation is constructed on the template of the ancient Jewish Betrothal and Marriage Ceremony. The intricate relationship between the Bridegroom and His Bride introduced in the Old Testament writings is brought to consummation in the New Testament and can be more clearly understood through the worldview of the First Century Jews who wrote it two hundred years prior to Talmud, making the New Testament is pre-Talmudic Midrashic Hermeneutics. The revelation that the New Testament constructed on a Jewish pattern of Bible interpretation has world changing implications for New Testament readers. It is possible that some of the Bible interpretations of even popular New Testament theological positions, might have significantly different conclusions when it is understood that First Century Hillelian Midrashic principles were used extensively by the writers, especially the Apostle Paul.
0 comments