The Distinctly Jewish Logic (and hence Rhetoric) of the Bible and Talmud
Notes on and examples of the Biblical logic, being the logic of ancient Judaism, the Old and New Testaments and the Talmud.
There is a dialectic between on the one hand the original intent of the scriptures and on the other hand the interpretation of or hermeneutic used to study the scriptures.
This dialectic is a manifestation of the distinct and unique Biblical logic which is separate and distinct from the other well-developed systems of logic (eg. the Greek, the Indic/Hindu, the Sinic/Daoist).
It is desirable that the reader be aware of the difference between the Biblical and the Greek logic (which I call Aristotelian) ingrained as the latter is in many of us by virtue of our upbringing in the Western world. It seems that our proclivity to interpret many things in a simplistic fashion is connected to this.
We have, in the West, tried to interpret the Bible as though it were a Western text, using Western logic, rather than Jewish.
Note that this is not so much a matter of literalism versus non-literalism or symbolism. The Bible apparently teaches a literal 6-day creation on the one hand while presenting on the other hand symbols to be interpreted non-literally such as the winged lion, bear, four-headed leopard and beast with iron teeth in the book of Daniel (which are typically interpreted as representing four nations).
We shall look at some examples of the Jewish logic of the Bible manifest in the distinct dialectic of intent and interpretation, and then compare with the Talmudic examples of the same logic.
BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 1
Jeremiah 31:15 is quoted in the New Testament.
Let us look at the original verse:
A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.
Now let us look at how it this verse is applied in the New Testament:
Herod ... gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under ... Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.
(Matt. 2:16-18)
Ramah is distinct from Bethelehem and the children killed in Bethelehem would have been Jewish, hence descended from Leah, not Rachel.
In the prophecy of Jeremiah, Rachel's symbolical weeping is for her children the lost tribes of Joseph and Benjamin (Jer. 31:16-18), and not for the death of Leah's children.
Since the Jews (including the authors of the New Testament) knew their scriptures well, this application of the verse MUST be purposeful - otherwise, it is plainly a misapplication of the verse - the purpose being what we might call typological.
BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 2
A well-known prophecy from Isaiah states:
...the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give youc a sign:
The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah; he will bring the king of Assyria.
(Isa. 7:10-17)
Let us now look at how Isaiah 7:14 is applied in the New Testament.
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”
.
(Matt. 1:18-23)
For Isaiah's prophecy to be literally fulfilled the child would have to be born during the time of king Ahaz; the two kings whose land would be laid waste refers to the kings of Aram and Ephraim, whose kingdoms were both conquered by the Assyrian empire.
Since Isaiah is told to bring his son Shear-Jashub with him to meet Ahaz (Isa. 7:3) prior to delivering the prophecy one would be led to assume this might relate to the prophecy.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible comments on Isaiah 7:16:
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,.... This may be understood of Isaiah's child, Shearjashub, he had along with him, he was bid to take with him; and who therefore must be supposed to bear some part, or answer some end or other, in this prophecy; which it is very probable may be this, viz. to assure Ahaz and the house of David that the land which was abhorred by them should be forsaken of both its kings, before the child that was with him was grown to years of discretion;
Yet, following the Biblical logic, he adds:
though it may be understood of any child, and so of the Messiah;
Then he returns to the meaning of the passage in its original context:
and the sense be, that before any child, or new born babe, such an one as is promised, Isaiah 7:14, arrives to years of discretion, even in the space of a few years, this remarkable deliverance should be wrought, and the Jews freed from all fears of being destroyed by these princes ...
Of course, neither Shear-Jashub nor Yeshua bore the name Immanuel, so it could be referring to another child; indeed, Isaiah fathers at least two children important to his prophesying (namely Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and Shear-Jashub), so it is not inconceivable that he fathered a third son called Immanuel (Hosea fathers three prophetically significant children; with him the pattern is notably reversed, for his wife is a prostitute.)
Those trained in merely Aristotelian or (derivate) Enlightenment logic will have to conclude Isaiah is not referring to the birth of the Messiah. But those versed in Biblical logic (the same as found in the Talmud) will understand to interpret it typologically, and know how to correctly apply a verse "out of context"; that is to say, in a way that is seemingly removed from its original fulfillment or point of reference, applying it according to the principles of (for example) pattern and foreshadowing.
BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 3
But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he [Yeshua] would be called a Nazarene (Ναζωραῖος.
(Matt. 2:22-23)
There is no verse in the Old Testament that states "he would/will be called a Nazarene."
It is conjectured that the verse being referred to is Isaiah 11:1 which states:
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch (נצר will bear fruit.
As we can see, the Hebrew word for branch resembles the word Nazarene.
~~~
In the Talmud we may find many examples of the same kind of thinking. Although the Talmud may reach different conclusions, what we are here interested in is a matter of method, of hermeneutic, of logic, rather than the conclusions reached by this method.
Let us look at some examples from the Talmud:
TALMUDIC EXAMPLE 1 (from Neziqin, Bava Batra)
Rabbi Eleazar said: Job lived in the days when the judges judged (Ruth 1:1) for it is said "you have all seen this yourselves; why then this nonsense?" (Job 27:12). Which generation was a generation of nonsense? Surely, the generation when the judges judged!
Rabbi Joshua ben Qorha says: Job lived in the days of Ahasuerus, for it says "nowhere in the land were women as beautiful as Job's daughters to be found" (Job 42:15). In which generation did they seek out beautiful women? In the generation of Ahasuerus.
Why didn't he say the generation of David, seeing it is written "and they sought a beautiful maiden" (1 Kings 1:3)? For this was only "through the borders of Israel" whereas (in the time of Ahasuerus) they sought throughout the world (Esther 2:2).
Rabbi Nathan says: Job lived in the time of the queen of Sheba, as it is said "Sabeans attacked them and carried them off" (Job 1:15).
But the sages say: (Job lived) in the time of the Chaldeans, for it is said "the Chaldeans formed three columns" (Job 1:17).
Some say that Job lived in the days of Jacob and married Jacob's daughter, Dinah; (for concerning Job's wife) it is written "you talk like an abhorrent woman!" (Job 2:10) and (of Dinah it is written) "he had comitted an abhorrence by lying with Jacob's daughter" (Genesis 34:7).
Comments:
Notice that in the last example, Dinah is said to be Job's wife because Job's wife is imputed with foolish or abhorrent talk, which is supposedly significant in that Dinah is associated with the abhorrent rape by Shechem.
One might wonder whether the "he" of Genesis 34:7 is understood to apply to Job, not in the sense that Job and Shechem are the same, but that the verse applies to them both; the connection between this verse and Job 2:10 being the word נבל which occurs in both passages, denoting foolishness or the abhorrent.
This would be called "magical thinking" in modern terminology, and rejected as frivolous; nevertheless, the same thinking is found in the Bible.
TALMUDIC EXAMPLE 2 (Neziqin, Sanhedrin)
Abbaye said: There are never fewer than thirty-six virtuous men worthy to receive the Shekhina in each generation, as it is written "Blessed are all they that wait for him" (Isaiah 30:18); the numerical value of "they that wait for him" is thirty-six.
Can it be right? Did not Rava say that the generation which stands before the Holy One, blessed be he, is 18,000 strong, as it is said "round about is eighteen thousand" (Ezekiel 48:35)?
Not a problem; the thirty-six behold him as in a clear glass, the 18,000 behold him in a glass that is not clear.
Comments:
Confer Paul's analogy of seeing through a glass in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Note again that I am not supporting the conclusion, the doctrine of the 36 Nistarim, rather I am using the quote to exemplify the methodology of the Rabbis which is the same as the methodology of the writers of the New Testament, and distinct from how Greek-influenced Europeans (Catholics, Protestants) generally read and approach and interpret the Bible.
TALMUDIC EXAMPLE 3 (Neziqin, Horayot)
The rabbis taught: He, his father and his (Torah) teacher are in captivity; he has priority (for ransom) over his teacher, and his teacher over his father; the mother has priority over all of them. The sage has priority over a king of Israel, for if a sage dies he is irreplaceable, but if a king of Israel dies any Israelite can become king of Israel. The king takes priority over a High Priest, for it is said "the king said to them, take with you your master's servants ... Zadok the priest" (1 Kings 1:33-34). The High Priest takes priority over a prophet, for it says "let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him" (1 Kings 1:33); Zadok is put before Nathan. Similarly it says "listen, Joshua the High Priest, you and your friends ... men of wonders" (Zechariah 3:8); and they were not ordinary people, for they are called men of wonders, and 'men of wonders' refers to prophets, as it is said "if he gives you a sign or a wonder" (Deut. 13:2).
Comments:
This passage discusses the case where various people are in captivity and which of them have priority relative to ransom, itself being a pretense for assigning a ranking or hierarchy of importance.
We note that Zadok (the high priest) being mentioned before Nathan (the prophet) is interpreted hierarchically.
We note that a qualifier of prophethood from Deuteronomy is seen to be referenced in Zechariah which in turn is appealed to as another example of the same hierachy, the high priest being put before the prophets / men of wonders.
Suffice to say, if the Bible or Talmud had been written by Greek philosophers or European theologians it would have been very different, and would have to be read (interpreted) differently.
~~~
Notes on and examples of the Biblical logic, being the logic of ancient Judaism, the Old and New Testaments and the Talmud.
There is a dialectic between on the one hand the original intent of the scriptures and on the other hand the interpretation of or hermeneutic used to study the scriptures.
This dialectic is a manifestation of the distinct and unique Biblical logic which is separate and distinct from the other well-developed systems of logic (eg. the Greek, the Indic/Hindu, the Sinic/Daoist).
It is desirable that the reader be aware of the difference between the Biblical and the Greek logic (which I call Aristotelian) ingrained as the latter is in many of us by virtue of our upbringing in the Western world. It seems that our proclivity to interpret many things in a simplistic fashion is connected to this.
We have, in the West, tried to interpret the Bible as though it were a Western text, using Western logic, rather than Jewish.
Note that this is not so much a matter of literalism versus non-literalism or symbolism. The Bible apparently teaches a literal 6-day creation on the one hand while presenting on the other hand symbols to be interpreted non-literally such as the winged lion, bear, four-headed leopard and beast with iron teeth in the book of Daniel (which are typically interpreted as representing four nations).
We shall look at some examples of the Jewish logic of the Bible manifest in the distinct dialectic of intent and interpretation, and then compare with the Talmudic examples of the same logic.
BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 1
Jeremiah 31:15 is quoted in the New Testament.
Let us look at the original verse:
A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.
Now let us look at how it this verse is applied in the New Testament:
Herod ... gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under ... Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.
(Matt. 2:16-18)
Ramah is distinct from Bethelehem and the children killed in Bethelehem would have been Jewish, hence descended from Leah, not Rachel.
In the prophecy of Jeremiah, Rachel's symbolical weeping is for her children the lost tribes of Joseph and Benjamin (Jer. 31:16-18), and not for the death of Leah's children.
Since the Jews (including the authors of the New Testament) knew their scriptures well, this application of the verse MUST be purposeful - otherwise, it is plainly a misapplication of the verse - the purpose being what we might call typological.
BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 2
A well-known prophecy from Isaiah states:
...the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give youc a sign:
The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah; he will bring the king of Assyria.
(Isa. 7:10-17)
Let us now look at how Isaiah 7:14 is applied in the New Testament.
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about : His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”
.(Matt. 1:18-23)
For Isaiah's prophecy to be literally fulfilled the child would have to be born during the time of king Ahaz; the two kings whose land would be laid waste refers to the kings of Aram and Ephraim, whose kingdoms were both conquered by the Assyrian empire.
Since Isaiah is told to bring his son Shear-Jashub with him to meet Ahaz (Isa. 7:3) prior to delivering the prophecy one would be led to assume this might relate to the prophecy.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible comments on Isaiah 7:16:
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,.... This may be understood of Isaiah's child, Shearjashub, he had along with him, he was bid to take with him; and who therefore must be supposed to bear some part, or answer some end or other, in this prophecy; which it is very probable may be this, viz. to assure Ahaz and the house of David that the land which was abhorred by them should be forsaken of both its kings, before the child that was with him was grown to years of discretion;
Yet, following the Biblical logic, he adds:
though it may be understood of any child, and so of the Messiah;
Then he returns to the meaning of the passage in its original context:
and the sense be, that before any child, or new born babe, such an one as is promised, Isaiah 7:14, arrives to years of discretion, even in the space of a few years, this remarkable deliverance should be wrought, and the Jews freed from all fears of being destroyed by these princes ...
Of course, neither Shear-Jashub nor Yeshua bore the name Immanuel, so it could be referring to another child; indeed, Isaiah fathers at least two children important to his prophesying (namely Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and Shear-Jashub), so it is not inconceivable that he fathered a third son called Immanuel (Hosea fathers three prophetically significant children; with him the pattern is notably reversed, for his wife is a prostitute.)
Those trained in merely Aristotelian or (derivate) Enlightenment logic will have to conclude Isaiah is not referring to the birth of the Messiah. But those versed in Biblical logic (the same as found in the Talmud) will understand to interpret it typologically, and know how to correctly apply a verse "out of context"; that is to say, in a way that is seemingly removed from its original fulfillment or point of reference, applying it according to the principles of (for example) pattern and foreshadowing.
BIBLICAL EXAMPLE 3
But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he [Yeshua] would be called a Nazarene (Ναζωραῖος
.(Matt. 2:22-23)
There is no verse in the Old Testament that states "he would/will be called a Nazarene."
It is conjectured that the verse being referred to is Isaiah 11:1 which states:
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch (נצר
will bear fruit.As we can see, the Hebrew word for branch resembles the word Nazarene.
~~~
In the Talmud we may find many examples of the same kind of thinking. Although the Talmud may reach different conclusions, what we are here interested in is a matter of method, of hermeneutic, of logic, rather than the conclusions reached by this method.
Let us look at some examples from the Talmud:
TALMUDIC EXAMPLE 1 (from Neziqin, Bava Batra)
Rabbi Eleazar said: Job lived in the days when the judges judged (Ruth 1:1) for it is said "you have all seen this yourselves; why then this nonsense?" (Job 27:12). Which generation was a generation of nonsense? Surely, the generation when the judges judged!
Rabbi Joshua ben Qorha says: Job lived in the days of Ahasuerus, for it says "nowhere in the land were women as beautiful as Job's daughters to be found" (Job 42:15). In which generation did they seek out beautiful women? In the generation of Ahasuerus.
Why didn't he say the generation of David, seeing it is written "and they sought a beautiful maiden" (1 Kings 1:3)? For this was only "through the borders of Israel" whereas (in the time of Ahasuerus) they sought throughout the world (Esther 2:2).
Rabbi Nathan says: Job lived in the time of the queen of Sheba, as it is said "Sabeans attacked them and carried them off" (Job 1:15).
But the sages say: (Job lived) in the time of the Chaldeans, for it is said "the Chaldeans formed three columns" (Job 1:17).
Some say that Job lived in the days of Jacob and married Jacob's daughter, Dinah; (for concerning Job's wife) it is written "you talk like an abhorrent woman!" (Job 2:10) and (of Dinah it is written) "he had comitted an abhorrence by lying with Jacob's daughter" (Genesis 34:7).
Comments:
Notice that in the last example, Dinah is said to be Job's wife because Job's wife is imputed with foolish or abhorrent talk, which is supposedly significant in that Dinah is associated with the abhorrent rape by Shechem.
One might wonder whether the "he" of Genesis 34:7 is understood to apply to Job, not in the sense that Job and Shechem are the same, but that the verse applies to them both; the connection between this verse and Job 2:10 being the word נבל which occurs in both passages, denoting foolishness or the abhorrent.
This would be called "magical thinking" in modern terminology, and rejected as frivolous; nevertheless, the same thinking is found in the Bible.
TALMUDIC EXAMPLE 2 (Neziqin, Sanhedrin)
Abbaye said: There are never fewer than thirty-six virtuous men worthy to receive the Shekhina in each generation, as it is written "Blessed are all they that wait for him" (Isaiah 30:18); the numerical value of "they that wait for him" is thirty-six.
Can it be right? Did not Rava say that the generation which stands before the Holy One, blessed be he, is 18,000 strong, as it is said "round about is eighteen thousand" (Ezekiel 48:35)?
Not a problem; the thirty-six behold him as in a clear glass, the 18,000 behold him in a glass that is not clear.
Comments:
Confer Paul's analogy of seeing through a glass in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Note again that I am not supporting the conclusion, the doctrine of the 36 Nistarim, rather I am using the quote to exemplify the methodology of the Rabbis which is the same as the methodology of the writers of the New Testament, and distinct from how Greek-influenced Europeans (Catholics, Protestants) generally read and approach and interpret the Bible.
TALMUDIC EXAMPLE 3 (Neziqin, Horayot)
The rabbis taught: He, his father and his (Torah) teacher are in captivity; he has priority (for ransom) over his teacher, and his teacher over his father; the mother has priority over all of them. The sage has priority over a king of Israel, for if a sage dies he is irreplaceable, but if a king of Israel dies any Israelite can become king of Israel. The king takes priority over a High Priest, for it is said "the king said to them, take with you your master's servants ... Zadok the priest" (1 Kings 1:33-34). The High Priest takes priority over a prophet, for it says "let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him" (1 Kings 1:33); Zadok is put before Nathan. Similarly it says "listen, Joshua the High Priest, you and your friends ... men of wonders" (Zechariah 3:8); and they were not ordinary people, for they are called men of wonders, and 'men of wonders' refers to prophets, as it is said "if he gives you a sign or a wonder" (Deut. 13:2).
Comments:
This passage discusses the case where various people are in captivity and which of them have priority relative to ransom, itself being a pretense for assigning a ranking or hierarchy of importance.
We note that Zadok (the high priest) being mentioned before Nathan (the prophet) is interpreted hierarchically.
We note that a qualifier of prophethood from Deuteronomy is seen to be referenced in Zechariah which in turn is appealed to as another example of the same hierachy, the high priest being put before the prophets / men of wonders.
Suffice to say, if the Bible or Talmud had been written by Greek philosophers or European theologians it would have been very different, and would have to be read (interpreted) differently.
~~~
Last edited:
