Proof-text vs. midrash

[JJB]

Two points.

First, Jesus is the only one who truly understands the meaning behind all of the scriptures, so he is more than free to prooftext whenever he wants, as well as he is the only one who has the authority and power to change the context of any passage he desires.

Second, Jesus doesn't actually proof-text, he uses a form of Rabbinic teaching known as the midrash.

Peace,

Windlord.

1. Then why do Catholics use tradition as a lens to view scripture?

2. Enlighten me. How about in the desert when he uses "proof-texts" with Satan? Is that Rabbinic teaching, and to whom?

 

[Windlord]

1. Then why do Catholics use tradition as a lens to view scripture?

Because Tradition, like Scripture, comes from God.

2. Enlighten me. How about in the desert when he uses "proof-texts" with Satan? Is that Rabbinic teaching, and to whom?

It is rabbinic teaching, to the followers of Jesus within the Community that Saint Luke was writing too. It is a Midrash that parrallels the life of Christ with the persecution and temptations of the Life of the Body during the late first century.

Peace,

Windlord.

 

[JJB]

Because Tradition, like Scripture, comes from God.



It is rabbinic teaching, to the followers of Jesus within the Community that Saint Luke was writing too. It is a Midrash that parrallels the life of Christ with the persecution and temptations of the Life of the Body during the late first century.

Peace,

Windlord.

Yeah, okay. we're getting far afield.

CaDan....any jerseys?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Two points.

First, Jesus is the only one who truly understands the meaning behind all of the scriptures, so he is more than free to prooftext whenever he wants, as well as he is the only one who has the authority and power to change the context of any passage he desires.

Second, Jesus doesn't actually proof-text, he uses a form of Rabbinic teaching known as the midrash.

Peace,

Windlord.

This is interesting. I had not thought before of contrasting prooftexting with midrash. My dad could quote a scripture for everything, and as I get older, I find myself beginning to fall into the same habit, but it really was much more midrash than prooftext.

This is a tangent, though. Would you mind starting a thread in Bibliology & Hermeneutics to discuss this a bit? I find it fascinating!

 

[Crazy Liz]

This thread is split from a thread in GT. You can find the post that is quoted by the first few posts here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24518760&postcount=409

 

[Windlord]

This is interesting. I had not thought before of contrasting prooftexting with midrash. My dad could quote a scripture for everything, and as I get older, I find myself beginning to fall into the same habit, but it really was much more midrash than prooftext.

This is a tangent, though. Would you mind starting a thread in Bibliology & Hermeneutics to discuss this a bit? I find it fascinating!

Midrash does bear some similarity to prooftexting, but there are several things that seperate it.

For instance, prooftexting has one purpose, and that is to win an argument. Prooftexting tries to look at the most obvious meaning of the passage, but since that passage is isolated then the meaning may in fact be different than the meaning that we would usually get from simply reading scripture as we would any other book. The easiest way you can tell if someone is proof-texting is to look at the surrounding context of the passage they use. For instance, if someone wanted to say that we are saved by faith only, and that we are free to continue living a life of sin they might prooftext Eph 2:8-9. However, when one readings vs 10 as well, this changes the meaning of the prooftext, not only is the meaning different, but it is indeed quite the opposite.

Midrash serves a completely different purpose. The purpose of midrash is not to win arguments, but rather to strengthen the faith of the reader (in the case of Luke 4) or to give a new, metaphorical meaning to a passage. Unlike prooftexting, the Midrash seldom gives an interpretation of scripture that runs contrary to the context surrounding it, but rather gives an interpretation that at a first glance makes absolutely no sense. Indeed, there are many passages within the four gospels that quote OT verses that seem to have nothing to do with what Jesus is saying. What does Rachael weeping for her children have to do with the slaughter of the innocents? But there is always something within the midrash to tie the quoted scripture to the theme. Rachael weeping at Ramah is not only scripture, but Ramah is a place in Israel where you could hear the wind manipulated by the surrounding terrain that makes it sound like weeping. Midrash is supposed to make us think. It isn't suppose to prove a point to us, but rather to make us think about that point. To tie things we are familiar with to scriptures from the past. To give those scriptures a context that we have a part in. And that is what a Midrash is.

Wheh, I think this was a bit long winded, and I hope it isn't too hard to follow. Of course, I'm not really an expert on the matter, so don't take everything I say as gospel truth, but make sure to research it yourself.

Peace,

Windlord.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Midrash serves a completely different purpose. The purpose of midrash is not to win arguments, but rather to strengthen the faith of the reader (in the case of Luke 4) or to give a new, metaphorical meaning to a passage. Unlike prooftexting, the Midrash seldom gives an interpretation of scripture that runs contrary to the context surrounding it, but rather gives an interpretation that at a first glance makes absolutely no sense. Indeed, there are many passages within the four gospels that quote OT verses that seem to have nothing to do with what Jesus is saying. What does Rachael weeping for her children have to do with the slaughter of the innocents? But there is always something within the midrash to tie the quoted scripture to the theme. Rachael weeping at Ramah is not only scripture, but Ramah is a place in Israel where you could hear the wind manipulated by the surrounding terrain that makes it sound like weeping. Midrash is supposed to make us think. It isn't suppose to prove a point to us, but rather to make us think about that point. To tie things we are familiar with to scriptures from the past. To give those scriptures a context that we have a part in. And that is what a Midrash is.

That is a good example because it raises a lot of intertextuality. Besides Jeremiah 31, this midrash is written in such a way as also to bring to mind Genesis 35, where Rachel weeps before she dies giving birth to Benjamin at Bethlehem. There is a poignant and ironic reversal, which is characteristic of Matthew's gospel. Sometimes Matthew uses these subtle intertextual references referring to OT passages, and sometimes the links are internal to another part of the gospel itself.

A very good example. Thanks for posting it.

 

[stumpjumper]

Interesting. Is midrash a method of exegesis that is closely aligned with the phariseeical methodology?

Does anyone know how it would compare with Hellenized Jews in the first century like Philo of Alexandria?

 

[Windlord]

Interesting. Is midrash a method of exegesis that is closely aligned with the phariseeical methodology?

Does anyone know how it would compare with Hellenized Jews in the first century like Philo of Alexandria?

Closer than some would be comfortable with I'm sure. But Philo's Midrash stretched far beyond Metaphor and into Allegory, which isn't the same thing. Still, despite the Obvious Platonism of Philo, his is still a Jew through and through, and it does show in his writings.

Peace,

Windlord.

Edit-Yes, it is very closely aligned with Phariseetical tradition. The Saducees were literalists for the most part, and the Essenes were more into allegory and Apocalyptic interpretations.

 

[stumpjumper]

Thanks... That's what I was hoping but didn't have time to look up the Phariseeical link to midrash...