The Distinctly Jewish Logic of the Bible and Talmud

[Hoshiyya]

@Contra:
OK then, so we differ on the role or degree of helpfulness of the Talmud and similar sources relative to Bible study.

 

[ContraMundum]

If indeed you have no problem with the New Testament hermeneutic/logic/reasoning (and note again Paul uses essentially rabbinic reasoning as I contend Matthew and Yeshua, for example, do too) then I do not see what our disagreement should be.

We don't have much to disagree on, to be honest.

But your point begs the question- what is Rabbinic reasoning and how is it/was it formed?

I think the biggest mistake of all is to assume that Rabbinic reasoning is an entirely genetically Jewish paradigm to begin with.

I think it pretty clear that European systems of logic generally are based on a heritage from Plato, Socrates, Aristoteles et al, being (in any case) different from the system of logic employed in the Bible.

I beg to differ to some degree- I think Socratic thought is in the Bible- because Socratic thought is not only useful but filled with much truth- and all truth is God's truth. Rabbinic thought is highly influenced by Greek thought, and vice-versa. The two forms of philosophy grew up in the same 'hood, so to speak- at least for a time prior to Antiochus IV.

One can see Hebraic ideas in Greek thought, and Jewish teachers then and now admit to seeing great wisdom in the Greeks. Do a study of the Hebrew word "Yavan" (meaning Greece) and you find Rabbis telling you that it takes those letters because of the Greek notion of "going deeper and deeper" in thought and logic!

This is where the whole "Greek vs Hebraic" myth being taught by some Hebrew roots teachers completely falls on its backside.

I realize also around Hannukah no one has a nice thing to say about the Greeks and the difference in theological opinion really comes to the fore, but that is only part of the bigger picture in crossing cultures in the ancient world and how God's revelation came also to the Gentiles even before the Cross.

I think ignorance of the Biblical logic, the intended hermeneutic and dialectic between intent and interpretation, has led to great misunderstandings of how to approach and interpret the scriptures.

(To repeat what I said above: I think studying the Talmud and similar books can help one appreciate the methodology and logic behind the New Testament in a way that no other resources really can. And I can add: there are other resources that may be helpful too, but in a different way.)

Agreed.

 

[ContraMundum]

@Contra:
OK then, so we differ on the role or degree of helpfulness of the Talmud and similar sources relative to Bible study.

Maybe, maybe not. As we progress in understanding each other, we may find that we are merely taking a different emphasis in this conversation. We both obviously respect the Talmud highly, and rightly so IMHO.

 

[Hoshiyya]

"what is Rabbinic reasoning"

I've used the term Rabbinic and Jewish mostly interchangeably. The Rabbis being those who specialize in teaching Jewish - Biblical - thought, exegesis, etc.
See my OP examples.
I contrast the Biblical with the Hellenic/European, but if I was writing on a Chinese website I might contrast it with the logic of Sinic philosophical systems. If writing to New Agers, I might contrast with their system.


"and how is it/was it formed?"

Here, I think, the presumption that it was created by man is manifest. The New Testament writers' interpretations of the TNK is either right (spirit-breathed, God-inspired) or wrong. In turn I personally contend that the Talmud can help us understand the NT hermeneutic.

 

[ContraMundum]

"what is Rabbinic reasoning"

I've used the term Rabbinic and Jewish mostly interchangeably. The Rabbis being those who specialize in teaching Jewish - Biblical - thought, exegesis, etc.
See my OP examples.
I contrast the Biblical with the Hellenic/European, but if I was writing on a Chinese website I might contrast it with the logic of Sinic philosophical systems.


"and how is it/was it formed?"

Here, I think, the presumption that it was created by man is manifest. The New Testament writers' interpretations of the TNK is either right (spirit-breathed, God-inspired) or wrong. In turn I personally contend that the Talmud can help us understand the NT hermeneutic.

OK, I get a better picture where you are coming from.

I would agree that the NT authors were inspired and correct, but I think we would both have to agree that it is not Rabbinic training in a yeshiva that made it so- even if that is present as well and had a role to play. Clearly God was their teacher first and foremost.

Having said that, the Spirit has also led wise men from outside of the Jews to see and expound great truths contained in the Bible. Those same men compiled and preserved the canon, led by the same Spirit.

So, we could say that Hebraic thought led the authors (and other forms of though are used by the same authors to reach and speak to other peoples) but we can also say that God prepared other nations to heed this Word by forming their thought too. It's a message for everybody, I think.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I would like to add that there is a serious difference between (1) learning from MP3's and simply reading many different texts and (2) learning from a specific teacher over say 10 years. Many Messianics don't have, or choose not to have, this privilege; these people may say "God is my only teacher" but in practice are their own teacher.

 

[ContraMundum]

I would like to add that there is a serious difference between (1) learning from MP3's and simply reading many different texts and (2) learning from a specific teacher over say 10 years. Many Messianics don't have, or choose not to have, this privilege; these people may say "God is my only teacher" but in practice are their own teacher.

Agreed 100%.

Then again, one must choose a teacher wisely too- making it still a personal decision.