Thanks for the questions, I'll respond with my thoughts, but others here can perhaps more adequately respond and speak for the MJ position. I don't represent the opinion of most MJ's, as I've been trained only as a student of second temple period Jewish literature, and I am not qualified to answer from a Rabbinic perspective. I should have made this clear much earlier! (Please, others speak up!)
DanielRB said:
How does this ouch on the importance of Oral Torah? (Forgive me for being so dense!)
The Oral Torah explains where to place the focus, quite simply. It is the commentary on the text.
Would you say that this approach, though valid, can go to extremes--similar to the excesses of Midieval allegorical interpretation? I think this is one of the objections that many Gentile Christians and Karaite Jews have with Rabbinic interpretive methods.
Absolutely! Especially in our Post-Modern age, where sects reproduce like herring. I share the same reservations as the Churches and the Karaites. But I believe that everyone should (and can) practice Torah from the heart. This is the Kingdom of G-d. As well, the layers of depth and richness it gives to our understanding of Yeshua's words are immeasurable. If you are using Torah to spin off your own self-proclaimed doctrine and (worse) label others heretics because they disagree with you, I think you are missing the point, in my humble opinion. You are working then against the Kingdom, which is my problem with all cultish movements.
I think this is an unfair generalization. There are a wide variety of interpretive methods to the Bible in the Christian Community, and I wouldn't presume that many fine scholars throughout the ages were merely simplistic and narrow--just as I wouldn't characterize all Rabbinical Jews as handling the Biblical text like silly putty.
Forgive me if I've fallen now into the trap of generalizing. To state it better, Christians do read the text very creatively, however they only tend to give the text one meaning, and do not typically allow for an evolution of interpretive thought. I'm an architect and urbanist. In my field we call this the distinction between "closed-specific" and "open-specific" design. "Closed specific" design assigns one meaning and use to an object (a church), "Open-specific" design allows for room for interpretation and multiplicity of use (a street). Jews view scripture through an "open-specific" lens. That is why the authority of the sages is so valued to them and why they see their faith as an evolving relationship with HaShem, in ways peculiar to most Christians...although we too practice our faith subjectively at the communal level like Jews, we just don't admit it or are even aware that we do. The result of this approach is that we've progressively viewed the Bible as a repository of ancient knowledge that we can hold at a distance, instead of continually revisiting it and wrestling with it. There is a sad lack of biblical knowledge in our communities, which doesn't exist in Torah observant Judaism.
Please remember that many Christian scholars have studied Hebrew extensively and are familiar with the "warts" of the Hebrew text.
Understood. But they don't escape the "closed-specific" paradigm. They research the Hebrew to simply try to understand what the author may have "originally" intended to say. Nor do they seek to to integrate the linguistic disruption in meaning with the rest of scripture and build upon tradition. A Rabbi views textual problems as oppurtunities for midrashic expansion and cohesion. This is a very, very dramatic difference.
A Christian comes across a textual bump and says "Ouch!"...A Rabbi comes upon one and shouts "Hooorah! Boy oh boy! What does Rashi say about this! What does Rambam? What is
G-d hinting at here?!?"
Yet don't you think that those warts can be magnified out of porportion--making "mountains out of molehills"?
Of course, see my first reply. Still, some molehills are better as mountains.
Think: "Love your enemies" is making the molehill of "Love your neighbor as yourself" into a mountain. Yeshua is extending the fence to its highest height, stretching it to its furthest distance and his prooftext is Ecclesiastes: G-d even allows good things to happen to bad people, so go imitate Him.
I would clarify this by saying many Jews don't feel comfortable with Rabbinical exegetical methods, either--the Karaites among them. This is similar to how many Christians don't feel comfortable with Catholic interpretive methods or Dispensational interpretive methods.
Agreed. Everybody has a problem with someone's authority not their own. I would even put the Ultra-Orthodox in this category.
Is this why Messianic Jews are sometimes called "Messys"?
(Just kidding!)
Messy's are even more messy than typical Jews because they have to try to reconcile two difficult religious streams into some kind of modicum of livable doctrine.
Seriously though, many Christians are not so addicted to tidiness. There is a rich depth of mystical literature in Christian traditions that are not dry, tidy theological treatieses--for example, St. John of the Cross.
I agree!
I think many--perhaps most--Christians also look at the Bible as multi-faceted. I will admit, though, that many Dispensationalists emphasize the literal meaning over all else--though even then, they heavily look into typology (which is different than allegory, as you know.)
I have my stark reservations about typology, because I see any wooden interpretation of scripture as blindingly narrow. Many in this forum are quite comfortable with it, though. I just won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. I'm much happier with the depth of meanings already in the Hebrew text.
What exactly is this discipline? How does a Rabbinical Jew know "whoops, I've gone too far?" Is there a "fence" around interpretation, like the fence built around Torah?
In Messiah,
Daniel
Well, its the same discipline that we require of our pastors: discipleship, doctrinal education, accountability and ordination. All words spoken by others (myself included) should be taken with a grain of salt.
Shalom b'Yeshua,
Eric