Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
I’ve done some reading on the history of the Jewish transmission and interpreting of their religious codes and writings, especially as relates to the apostolic period. I found it quite a fascinating topic, and though I'm no expert, I thought a brief review of what I learned might also be of interest to some here.
____________________________________________________________
A good place to start is with the content and pedigree of the Mishnah, from the late 2nd or early 3rd century (some Orthodox Jewish traditions specify 189 AD). The Mishnah is essentially a redaction of the rabbinical Oral Law that was in effect or enacted during the late Second Temple period (c.150 BC to 70 AD). Although the exact historical origins and development of some components of the Oral Law are open to question, it is certain that for some centuries prior to the apostolic era many religious statutes were being transferred from one generation of Jewish people to the next by way of spoken word. Fearing this viva voce code could eventually be lost, whether by calamity or apathy, a Galilean rabbi named Judah na-Hasi (Judah the Prince; c.135–217 AD) undertook to assemble and preserve these precepts in written form.
To be sure, Christians do not share the notion that all of the Oral Law was biblically sound—and certainly not so in terms of how at least some of it had come to be applied by the 1st century AD. Jesus often lambasted the Pharisees for aggrandizing and overvaluing some such statutes (cf. Matt. 23:23–24; Mark 2:23–28, Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6; John 7:21–24), and he emphatically denounced one socio-religious ruling that blatantly flew in the face of the Written Law (Mark 7:9–13)—a.k.a. the Pentateuch, Torah, or Mosaic Law.
Mishnah is derived from the Hebrew word shanah—to learn and repeat. The Mishnah is also the foundational component of the Jewish Talmud—instruction; learning, which copiously supplements the mishnaic text with later rabbinic expositions on it, known as gemara—study. To complete this line of thought, there are actually two Talmuds (both based on the Mishnah but with varying Gemara): the Jerusalem (c. 4th century AD), and the Babylonian (c. 6th century AD). The Babylonian is by far the more comprehensive and well known of the two, and when the term Talmud is used without further designation it almost always refers to that version.
A select group of sages, known as Tannaim—teachers; repeaters, were widely deemed the most scrupulous and trustworthy purveyors of the Oral Law. For that reason, their collective teachings are the predominant source underlying the Mishnah. The Tannaim generally flourished from about 10–220 AD, whereas their forbearers (the top rabbinic authorities from c.200 BC–10 AD) are referred to as zekenim ha-rishonim—the former elders. The two most famous and respected members of this earlier grouping were Hillel (c.70 BC–c.10 AD) and Shammai (c.50 BC–c.30 AD). Both of these rabbis attracted large followings that eventually developed into competing and sometimes hostile schools of religious teaching. They are sometimes jointly referred to as The Elders (cf. Mark 7:3). In the 1st century AD, the schools of Hillel and Shammai also influenced many aspects of the sectarian formulations of the Pharisees, whereas some of their rivals, most recognizably the Sadducees, rejected the notion of Oral Law.
Interestingly, the chief compiler of the Mishnah, Judah na-Hasi, was probably a grandson of Gamaliel the Elder (d.52 AD), who was in turn a grandson of Hillel. Gamaliel is seen in Jewish history as a significant figure within the Tannaim. Christians may of course also be familiar with Gamaliel as the well-regarded Pharisee and leading member of the Sanhedrin whom the pre-apostle Paul studied under (Acts 5:34–39; 22:3; cf. Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5).
Hillel is considered to have greatly influenced the Tannaim, as well as the pharisaic interpretation of the Torah, from the time of his rabbinic ascendency in c.40 BC, all the way to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So, in order to appreciate how both the Written and Oral laws were often interpreted during the apostolic era, as well as during the timeframe when most or all of the New Testament was written, it is useful to understand the hermeneutical system attributed to Hillel. This is not to say that the various tenets of Hillel’s system weren’t in use well before his time, but he created a formal method of interpretation (with such systems being known as middot—literally, measurements; applicably, rule) for his followers. Here is a basic outline of Hillel’s seven rules of interpretation, some or all of which may already be familiar to many.
In terms of how this system relates to later Christian schools of interpretation, the following similarities have been proposed:
All of this has prompted one scholar to opine, “...careful study of the Mishnah and its interpretive methods would pay rich dividends for a Christian interpreter today.” (Ancient Jewish Hermeneutics, 70.)
____________________________________________________
Sources:
Robert B. Sloan, Jr., Carey C. Newman, Ancient Jewish Hermeneutics; Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, Grant I. Lovejoy, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002)
Magne Saebo, ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: History of Its Interpretation, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996)
Walter C. Kaiser, Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994).
H. Balz, G. Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990)
David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000)
Joel Green, Scot McKnight, eds., The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1992)
The Jewish Encyclopedia, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1907)
Encyclopedia Judaica, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 2007)
____________________________________________________________
A good place to start is with the content and pedigree of the Mishnah, from the late 2nd or early 3rd century (some Orthodox Jewish traditions specify 189 AD). The Mishnah is essentially a redaction of the rabbinical Oral Law that was in effect or enacted during the late Second Temple period (c.150 BC to 70 AD). Although the exact historical origins and development of some components of the Oral Law are open to question, it is certain that for some centuries prior to the apostolic era many religious statutes were being transferred from one generation of Jewish people to the next by way of spoken word. Fearing this viva voce code could eventually be lost, whether by calamity or apathy, a Galilean rabbi named Judah na-Hasi (Judah the Prince; c.135–217 AD) undertook to assemble and preserve these precepts in written form.
To be sure, Christians do not share the notion that all of the Oral Law was biblically sound—and certainly not so in terms of how at least some of it had come to be applied by the 1st century AD. Jesus often lambasted the Pharisees for aggrandizing and overvaluing some such statutes (cf. Matt. 23:23–24; Mark 2:23–28, Luke 13:10–17, 14:1–6; John 7:21–24), and he emphatically denounced one socio-religious ruling that blatantly flew in the face of the Written Law (Mark 7:9–13)—a.k.a. the Pentateuch, Torah, or Mosaic Law.
Mishnah is derived from the Hebrew word shanah—to learn and repeat. The Mishnah is also the foundational component of the Jewish Talmud—instruction; learning, which copiously supplements the mishnaic text with later rabbinic expositions on it, known as gemara—study. To complete this line of thought, there are actually two Talmuds (both based on the Mishnah but with varying Gemara): the Jerusalem (c. 4th century AD), and the Babylonian (c. 6th century AD). The Babylonian is by far the more comprehensive and well known of the two, and when the term Talmud is used without further designation it almost always refers to that version.
A select group of sages, known as Tannaim—teachers; repeaters, were widely deemed the most scrupulous and trustworthy purveyors of the Oral Law. For that reason, their collective teachings are the predominant source underlying the Mishnah. The Tannaim generally flourished from about 10–220 AD, whereas their forbearers (the top rabbinic authorities from c.200 BC–10 AD) are referred to as zekenim ha-rishonim—the former elders. The two most famous and respected members of this earlier grouping were Hillel (c.70 BC–c.10 AD) and Shammai (c.50 BC–c.30 AD). Both of these rabbis attracted large followings that eventually developed into competing and sometimes hostile schools of religious teaching. They are sometimes jointly referred to as The Elders (cf. Mark 7:3). In the 1st century AD, the schools of Hillel and Shammai also influenced many aspects of the sectarian formulations of the Pharisees, whereas some of their rivals, most recognizably the Sadducees, rejected the notion of Oral Law.
Interestingly, the chief compiler of the Mishnah, Judah na-Hasi, was probably a grandson of Gamaliel the Elder (d.52 AD), who was in turn a grandson of Hillel. Gamaliel is seen in Jewish history as a significant figure within the Tannaim. Christians may of course also be familiar with Gamaliel as the well-regarded Pharisee and leading member of the Sanhedrin whom the pre-apostle Paul studied under (Acts 5:34–39; 22:3; cf. Acts 23:6; Phil. 3:5).
Hillel is considered to have greatly influenced the Tannaim, as well as the pharisaic interpretation of the Torah, from the time of his rabbinic ascendency in c.40 BC, all the way to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So, in order to appreciate how both the Written and Oral laws were often interpreted during the apostolic era, as well as during the timeframe when most or all of the New Testament was written, it is useful to understand the hermeneutical system attributed to Hillel. This is not to say that the various tenets of Hillel’s system weren’t in use well before his time, but he created a formal method of interpretation (with such systems being known as middot—literally, measurements; applicably, rule) for his followers. Here is a basic outline of Hillel’s seven rules of interpretation, some or all of which may already be familiar to many.
1) Qal wahomer—An argument from the minor (qal) to the major (homer). If something applies in a less important point, it will certainly apply in the major.
2) Gezerah shawah—By comparing similar expressions in two different verses it is reasoned that whatever applies in one of the verses is equally applicable in the other.
3) Binyan ab mikathub ’ehad—When the same phrase is found in a number of verses, then what is found in one verse applies to them all.
4) Binyan ab mishene kethubim—A principle is established by relating two verses together; once established, this principle can be applied to other verses.
5) Kelal upherat—If a law is stated in the general and then followed by a specific statement, the general law only applies in the specific statement.
The reverse is also true: Pherat ukelal—If the particular instances are stated first and are followed by the general category, instances other than those are also included.
6) Kayoze bo bemaqom ‘aher—A difficulty in one text may be resolved by comparing it with another similar text.
7) Dabar halarned me’inyano—specific meaning is established by its context.
In terms of how this system relates to later Christian schools of interpretation, the following similarities have been proposed:
a) In that Hillel’s system derived meaning from context and comparing passages of holy writ, it operated within the general parameters of having Scripture interpret Scripture, and so produced for the most part, logical extensions of a plain sense of Scripture. Accordingly, the logical and analogical character of Hillel’s middot anticipated much of what is now known as historical-grammatical interpretation.
b) It has been suggested that way in which “inaugurated eschatology” (the understanding that Christian theology and the end times were initiated by the life and ministry of Christ, and thus there are both ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ aspects to the Kingdom of God) governs the discussion of Old Testament citations in the New Testament is very reminiscent of qal wahomer.
c) The Reformational principle of allowing a clearly understood text to interpret an obscure one is a first cousin to the kayoze bo bemaqom ‘aher.
d) It has been proposed that all seven of Hillel’s canons of interpretation are effectively used throughout the New Testament, especially by Jesus and the Apostle Paul. For example, the basic tenet of qal wahomer is evident in various passages that revolve around the principle of “if [such and such]... then how much more [such and such]...” (e.g., Matt. 6:26–33, 7:11; Luke 12:24–28; John 7:23, 10:34–36; Rom. 5:15–21; 2 Cor. 3:7–11.)
All of this has prompted one scholar to opine, “...careful study of the Mishnah and its interpretive methods would pay rich dividends for a Christian interpreter today.” (Ancient Jewish Hermeneutics, 70.)
____________________________________________________
Sources:
Robert B. Sloan, Jr., Carey C. Newman, Ancient Jewish Hermeneutics; Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, Grant I. Lovejoy, eds., Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002)
Magne Saebo, ed., Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: History of Its Interpretation, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996)
Walter C. Kaiser, Moisés Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1994).
H. Balz, G. Schneider, eds., Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1990)
David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000)
Joel Green, Scot McKnight, eds., The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1992)
The Jewish Encyclopedia, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1907)
Encyclopedia Judaica, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 2007)