[quote=“Confuzius”]I know you know your stuff, so I believe you know how deceptive this statement may be to people who are not familiar with this subject.
There is no single “Second Temple Period” Jewish exegetical approach; there were many. So this statement really doesn’t say much of anything. As I have no doubt you know, Judaism during the 2nd temple was extremely diverse…much more so than it is today perhaps (definitely much more so than it was for a good thousand plus years until the modern era). So there is no “approach” for them to be “well within”.[/quote]
Whoa, steady on there. Within Second Temple Period Judaism, there was a distinct approach to exegesis. Sure it was multi-faceted, but there were broad interpretive trends distinctive to the era. Of course Judaism within the Second Temple Period was extremely diverse, but regardless of this fact there were established principles of exegesis which were widespread, and are found in multiple independent witnesses including Philo, Josephus, the Qumran scrolls, the New Testament, and the earliest rabbinical sources.
For example, Hillel’s seven rules of interpretation are all used in the New Testament, as well as the Mishnah. As another example, ‘Edom’ and ‘Babylon’ were understood in exegesis as code words for Rome; again, this is found in a broad range of Second Temple Period literature; the apocryphal and psuedepigraphical works, the Qumran texts, some of the earliest rabbinical literature, and also (at least with regard to ‘Babylon’), in the New Testament.
So you can point to the New Testament and identify its exegetical method as being distinctively within the Second Temple Period. To say that a writer is well within the exegetical tradition of the Second Temple Period, is to say that they are applying exegetical strategies distinctive to the era. The literature on this is well established.[1]
Wait, what? Since when was ‘the Jewish interpretive tradition’ defined by whoever is mentioned the Talmud? That would mean the Jewish interpretive tradition only dates from the first century onward (at earliest). I don’t know scholar who defines the Jewish interpretive tradition in such a restrictive way. The Jewish interpretive tradition is typically considered to have started with the LXX and the Targums, at the very least.
Different topic; his lack of reception doesn’t change the fact that his exegesis of the Genesis narrative is well within Second Temple Period methodology, and he’s part of the Jewish interpretive tradition.
Evidence please that he was ‘thought to be Christian, not Jewish’. By whom? A few of the early Christian interpreters? He was Jewish, both ethnically and by religion, and he is certainly part of the Jewish interpretive tradition.
I think we do agree; if you want however, we can swap quotations for mutual interest.
I made it very clear that this wasn’t a widely held Jewish belief. I pointed out that it was the earliest explicit interpretation of the text (leaving aside the less systematic allusions and references in the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha which preceded the first century), but I don’t believe I overstated their importance or represented them as the majority view, or even a widely held view. The point I made explicitly was that the local interpretation was very old, not that it was widespread within early Judaism. I even made it clear that the global interpretation became dominant in the Christian tradition, and was widely represented in the Jewish tradition.
[1] See Helyer, ‘Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students’ (2002), Schiffman, ‘Understanding Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism’ (2003), Saccho, ‘The History Of The Second Temple Period’ (2004), for example.
It’s part of the same narrative, isn’t it? I thought God created the flood to punish humanity for its wickedness, you know, Adam and Eve and all that. Is all of Genesis a local event?
No it isn’t. It might not have been written by the same author, or at the same time. Genesis is a collection of independent narratives from different writers, which were collated over time.
God created the flood to punish wicked people, certainly. Every human on the planet? No. The survival of the Nephilim is explicit evidence of this.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
It’s more accurate to say that within Genesis there are almost no references to the entire earth in the cosmological sense. The Hebrews had no concept of the earth in the way we do, no concept of ‘the entire planet’, and understood heaven and earth in simple cosmological terms of ‘the stuff up there and the stuff down there’, not in spatial and geographical terms the way we do. This is common to the their Ancient Near Eastern milieu.
[1] ‘The bald allusion to the Nephilim (lit. fallen ones) in Gen 6:3 (‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days … ’) fits uneasily into a context that has always presented a challenge to exegetes.’, Coxon, ‘Nephilim’, in Toorn, Becking & Horst (eds.), ‘Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible’, p. 618 (2nd rev. ed. 1999).
[2] ‘In Genesis 6, the Nephilim are connected with the multiplication of humanity on the face of the earth (v 1) and with the evil of humanity which brings about God’s judgment in the form of the flood (vv 5–7). Verse 4 includes a reference to later (postdiluvian) Nephilim. The majority of the spies who were sent by Joshua to spy out Canaan reported giants whom they called Nephilim, and who are designated in the account as the sons of Anak (Num 13:33).’, Hess, ‘Nephilim’, in Freedman (ed.), ‘Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary’, volume 4, p. 1072 (1996).
[3] ‘From Numbers 13 we learn that the Anakites are said to be descendants of the “Nephilim.” If the Nephilim of Num 13:33 and Gen 6:4 are taken as the same group, the verse indicates that the Nephilim and their descendants survived the flood.’, Matthews, ‘New American Commentary’, p. 336 (2001).
[4] ‘It is not clear why or how the Nephilim survived the Flood to become the original ‘Canaanites; probably a duality of older oral traditions can be detected in the clash between these two texts.’, Hendel, ‘Nephilim’, in Metzger & Coogan (eds.), ‘The Oxford guide to people & places of the Bible’, p. 217 (2004).
[5] ‘The nephilim of Num 13.33 are the people whom the men saw when they were sent to spy out the land of Canaan while Israel was in the wilderness. These beings described as giganteV in LXX present the reader with the problem of how giants survived the Flood, in contrast to the Watcher tradition that conveys that all the giants were physically killed.’, Wright, ‘The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1-4 in Early Jewish Literature‘, p. 81 (2005).
The entirety of religion and religious texts are a lot like asking stone age cave men about recursive data structures: they’ve got no clue but can shake a bone at you until you go away.
Don’t bother.
Except for Scientology, but then we KNOW that that’s a pastiche of lies and fabrications dished out by, surprise surprise, a science fiction writer of less than generous talent who at least could be trusted to spout stuff of such wonderful fatuous quality.
Whether or not you believe any of it is entirely up to you, of course!
It’s not just about verses: that’s the problem with the fundamentalist argument. The Genesis myths, especially the flood myth, correlate with pre-judean myths from Sumeria and were absorbed into what has become The Bible. You have to put the story into the context of the time and place. You can’t interpret The Bible with verses from within The Bible itself alone.[/quote]
So… do you have any verses that support a local flood?
[quote=“Fortigurn”]Every human on the planet? No. The survival of the Nephilim is explicit evidence of this.[/quote]What you need to make Nephilim is “Sons of God” and “daughters of men”. Are you of the opinion that you could not find both these on the Ark?
[quote]within Genesis there are almost no references to the entire earth in the cosmological sense. The Hebrews had no concept of the earth in the way we do, no concept of ‘the entire planet’[/quote]“Almost” or “none”?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand how you think this addresses the passage in question. The text says nothing about the Nephilim being the product of the sons of God and the daughters of men; it is the ‘haggibborim’ who are described as the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men, not the Nephilim. The text says plainly that the Nephilim lived in those days, and afterwards. See the commentaries I cited earlier.
Almost none; the earth is referred to in a cosmological sense in Genesis 1:1-2:4 (as ‘the stuff down here’, differentiated from ‘the stuff up there’, as I mentioned previously), though not in a geographical sense. I am not aware of any passages in Genesis which speak of the earth in the modern sense of the ‘entire planet’.
Sorry, nothing to add, but just wanted to say thanks to Fortigurn for his posts.
The history is interesting and although I’m a Carl Sagan-style atheist, I’m put off by this simple “If he believes in God, he must be a moron” ideology.
[quote=“almas john”]Sorry, nothing to add, but just wanted to say thanks to Fortigurn for his posts.
The history is interesting and although I’m a Carl Sagan-style atheist, I’m put off by this simple “If he believes in God, he must be a moron” ideology.[/quote]
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Confuzius”]I know you know your stuff, so I believe you know how deceptive this statement may be to people who are not familiar with this subject.
There is no single “Second Temple Period” Jewish exegetical approach; there were many. So this statement really doesn’t say much of anything. As I have no doubt you know, Judaism during the 2nd temple was extremely diverse…much more so than it is today perhaps (definitely much more so than it was for a good thousand plus years until the modern era). So there is no “approach” for them to be “well within”.[/quote]
Whoa, steady on there. Within Second Temple Period Judaism, there was a distinct approach to exegesis. Sure it was multi-faceted, but there were broad interpretive trends distinctive to the era. Of course Judaism within the Second Temple Period was extremely diverse, but regardless of this fact there were established principles of exegesis which were widespread, and are found in multiple independent witnesses including Philo, Josephus, the Qumran scrolls, the New Testament, and the earliest rabbinical sources. [/quote]
I wholeheartedly disagree. You can in no way, whatsoever say that there were interpretive trends that were shared by all the big players so to speak. The Sadducees and Pharisees are a wonderful and easy example of this.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
For example, Hillel’s seven rules of interpretation are all used in the New Testament, as well as the Mishnah.[/quote]
Of course they are in the Mishnah. Where are they in the NT? (not challenging this, just curious actually).
And you may be interested to know, there are also lists of (different lists, in the Mishnah and the Tosefta) of12 and 13 hermeuneutical rules. Maybe you already know this, but in case not, more yummy brain food to know.
This is not a good example. This is a single word, not in any way an exegetical methodology. Using the word “indo” to describe high grade marijuana across various counter culture communities is equally an exegetical methodology.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
So you can point to the New Testament and identify its exegetical method as being distinctively within the Second Temple Period. To say that a writer is well within the exegetical tradition of the Second Temple Period, is to say that they are applying exegetical strategies distinctive to the era. The literature on this is well established.[1][/quote]
Got a page for your footnote? Citing entire books or papers is not all that helpful.
Wait, what? Since when was ‘the Jewish interpretive tradition’ defined by whoever is mentioned the Talmud? That would mean the Jewish interpretive tradition only dates from the first century onward (at earliest). I don’t know scholar who defines the Jewish interpretive tradition in such a restrictive way. The Jewish interpretive tradition is typically considered to have started with the LXX and the Targums, at the very least.[/quote]
Until rabbinic literature came about, there was not A
Jewish interpretive tradition, there were many. My point (as stated below as well) is that you cited people and treated them as though they were mainstream. Though as you say that was not your intention, so we can let this go too I guess.
Different topic; his lack of reception doesn’t change the fact that his exegesis of the Genesis narrative is well within Second Temple Period methodology, and he’s part of the Jewish interpretive tradition.
Evidence please that he was ‘thought to be Christian, not Jewish’. By whom? A few of the early Christian interpreters? He was Jewish, both ethnically and by religion, and he is certainly part of the Jewish interpretive tradition.[/quote]
More than a few…and not merely early, but yes.
I made it very clear that this wasn’t a widely held Jewish belief.[/quote]
Yes there are; apart from the language used, there’s the reference to survivors. In any case, the earliest recipients of the text had no concept of the entire earth as we do; the Sumerians used phrases such as ‘the entire universe’ to refer to the kingdom of Sumer. [/quote]
I just read it again and couldn’t find anything in the flood story that would indicate that it was a local event. I saw a number of phrases to indicate that it was a whole earth event. Stuff like, “on the face of the whole earth,” “under the whole heaven,” etc. IMHO the only common sense interpretation that you could give the English language text is that it involved the whole earth. If there is a passage that “contradicts” that you could provide it for us, no?
If the Sumerians likely had, as you said, “no conception of the earth as we do,” why would they then have made reference to the fact that it was a local event? Indeed, how “could” they have done that? It wouldn’t have been a distinction that they would have been aware of.
(I’m assuming here that by recipients, you mean recipients from god of this holy scipt or some such, AND the first writers of the story. Otherwise what difference would it make what phrases the sumerians used?)
[quote=“Fortigurn”]I’m sorry, I don’t understand how you think this addresses the passage in question. The text says nothing about the Nephilim being the product of the sons of God and the daughters of men[/quote]Sure, it does. Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 both speak of “נָפִיל”. And Genesis says these “nĕphiyl” we’re the offspring of “sons of God” and “daughters of men”.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
So, the question remains unanswered. Do you think both these groups were on the ark or not?
[quote]it is the ‘haggibborim’ who are described as the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men, not the Nephilim. The text says plainly that the Nephilim lived in those days, and afterwards. See the commentaries I cited earlier.[/quote]No idea what you’re talking about with “haggibborim”. Is he a “Harry Potter” character?
[quote]Almost none; the earth is referred to in a cosmological sense in Genesis 1:1-2:4 (as ‘the stuff down here’, differentiated from ‘the stuff up there’, as I mentioned previously), though not in a geographical sense. I am not aware of any passages in Genesis which speak of the earth in the modern sense of the ‘entire planet’.[/quote] :ohreally: You’re so confusing. The bible either does refer to the entire planet or it doesn’t. Which is it? “Almost none” or none?
There are two rational responses to the story of the flood. The first is to reject it as historical, the second is to accept it as it is plainly presented. And the flood is plainly presented as global judgement.
In terms of whether the biblical verses themselves make it appear whether it was either local or global…I gotto say…it really seems global.
And I am working with the Hebrew here:
Gensis ch. 6:
יז וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-הַמַּבּוּל מַיִם עַל-הָאָרֶץ, לְשַׁחֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-בָּאָרֶץ, יִגְוָע. 17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven;every thing that is in the earth shall perish.
even more global:
Genesis ch. 7
ד כִּי לְיָמִים עוֹד שִׁבְעָה, אָנֹכִי מַמְטִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ, אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם, וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה; וּמָחִיתִי, אֶת-כָּל-הַיְקוּם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי, מֵעַל, פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have madewill I blot out from off the face of the earth.’
Every gosh darn thing that god made…sounds global. Not “everything I made in Texas” but EVERYTHING.
יט וְהַמַּיִם, גָּבְרוּ מְאֹד מְאֹד–עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְכֻסּוּ, כָּל-הֶהָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים, אֲשֶׁר-תַּחַת, כָּל-הַשָּׁמָיִם. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered.
And yes, the Hebrew says underneath ALLLLLL the heavens. Not the heavens of Texas…global.
Now, I left out many of the verses that simply say “all the land” or “the land” as perhaps those particular ones are ambiguous and can be read either way.
But from reading the text at simple face value…definitely seems global
It’s not just about verses: that’s the problem with the fundamentalist argument. The Genesis myths, especially the flood myth, correlate with pre-judean myths from Sumeria and were absorbed into what has become The Bible. You have to put the story into the context of the time and place. You can’t interpret The Bible with verses from within The Bible itself alone.[/quote]
So… do you have any verses that support a local flood?[/quote]
No, I don’t have verses that support a local flood because there are none. I’m just pointing out that the flood myth in the bible was originally a Sumerian myth.
The Sumerians, like the Egyptians experienced a deluge every year and occasionally great deluges that became myths and legends.
[quote=“almas john”]Sorry, nothing to add, but just wanted to say thanks to Fortigurn for his posts.
The history is interesting and although I’m a Carl Sagan-style atheist, I’m put off by this simple “If he believes in God, he must be a moron” ideology.[/quote]
I’ll second that. Reading Fortigurn’s posts is a pure joy. I always learn a great deal and have fun in the process. I’ve also learned not to disagree with him, or he’ll make me look stupid. That part wasn’t so fun.
Right on. I have a lot more respect for those who have really studied their faith and defend it, than for those who just accept it.
We are lucky to have some sharp people here who can read Greek, or Hebrew and really know a lot more about these subjects than your average person.
Me? I don’t believe. I just haven’t been convinced by the evidence. And the Bible as I was taught it, is so full of areas that are unclear or go against what we now believe to be true. So we have Christian apologetics to present a rational basis for all that was written. Some like William Lane Craig (and our own Fortigurn) really do a great job of this.
But for me, “the word of God” should be clear and correct. I can’t help thinking of the word “apologize” when I hear “apologetics.” It’s as though they are apologizing for their poorly worded holy book. And you don’t have to get far into the Bible before you have a lot of explaining (and from my POV, apologizing) to do. Read Genesis 1 to 10…from “In the beginning” to the flood.
When we read the China Post, we complain about them getting the numbers wrong on the drug bust. I assume no inspiration from above is involved there, and if we’re lucky, they’ll print a retraction.
I’d expect MUCH more from any book inspired by the creater of the universe. So, God created the heavens and the earth, but he couldn’t get people to write a clear book? I’m sorry. If you’re going to call it the word of God, I expect something divine.
I don’t know what you mean by ‘shared by all the big players’, but what I said is true; there were established principles of exegesis which were widespread, and are found in multiple independent witnesses including Philo, Josephus, the Qumran scrolls, the New Testament, and the earliest rabbinical sources. I’m not sure what you mean by your reference to the Sadducees and Pharisees. They had different exegetical conclusions, but used the same kinds of exegetical strategies.
I’m going to go with the scholarship on this one. Since you said ‘Citing entire books or papers is not all that helpful’ (fair comment), I have spent some time going through my personal library in order to provide you with an abundance of scholarly commentary on the subject, with direct quotations and specific page references. Here are the facts.
There were exegetical methods distinctive to the Second Temple Period,[1] which were widespread;[2] [3] found in witnesses as diverse as the New Testament,[4] Philo,[5] and Qumran.[6] These exegetical principles were accepted ‘all over the critical world of the time’, and were used specifically to communicate exegetical conclusions effectively within the community.[7] These exegetical methods, or ‘middot’, are found throughout the Second Temple Period, including Philo and the targums.[8] The exegetical methods used in Alexandria (where Philo lived), were not very different to those of Jerusalem.[9] Some of these exegetical methods, such as midrash, emerged very early in the post-exilic era, from which point they became normative in Second Temple Judaism, lasting up to the middle ages.[10] [11]
Fair question. There are examples of pesher in Mark 12:1-12; 14:26-27; Matthew 11:17-19; 13:10-16; 15:1-9, Luke 22:35-38, John 6:41-51; John 13:12-20; 15:18-25,[12] [13], in Paul,[14], and in Peter and Jude.[15] In Acts 2 there is ‘essentially the same exegetical method as at Qumran’.[16]
Yes, these lists were just enlargements of the list of techniques ascribed to Hillel.[17] They show yet again the remarkably stable set of hermeneutical principles which were widespread and normative within the Second Temple Period.
It is an excellent example precisely because it is not a matter of a single word. It’s a matter of exegeting prophetic texts written and interpreted in an earlier time, and ‘updating’ the interpretation so that it meets the needs of the faith community in the present. This was a well established and widely applied exegetical technique in the Second Temple Period, found in Josephus, the New Testament, and Qumran, as well as the early rabbinical sources.
Your analogy of the word ‘indo’ is a false analogy because it’s not addressing an exegetical technique. In addition, your example is the opposite of what I cited; ‘Edom’ and ‘Babylon’ weren’t used by the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Persians, or other cultures as references to Rome, or did these other cultures read the Bible and interpret ‘Edom’ and ‘Babylon’ as references to Rome. This usage was distinctive to the Jewish community of the Second Temple Period, and only emerged within this period. Beyond this period, it survived only as an archaism in the medieval rabbis. Again, there’s plenty of scholarship on this if you want to read it.
[quote]Until rabbinic literature came about, there was not A
Jewish interpretive tradition, there were many.[/quote]
When scholars refer to ‘the Jewish interpretive tradition’, they refer to the entire tradition of Jewish interpretation of the community’s texts from the date that the first interpretations started being created, typically understood as the time of Nehemiah, at the commencement of the Second Temple Period. The individual exegetical traditions of sub-communities and sectarian groups are typically identified by name; the ‘Tannaitic tradition’, the ‘Karaite tradition’, the ‘Qumran tradition’.
I said I wasn’t representing them as the majority; they were certainly well within the mainstream. They used the same kind of exegetical techniques of others within the Second Temple Period, such as rabbis, Qumranites, and Christians.
Ok so we’ve established that Philo wasn’t actually considered Christian until very recently; he was only considered Christian by a number of early to medieval Christian commentators. In reality he was ethnically and religiously Jewish.
[1] ‘Synchronically, one may engage in a comparative investigation as against the exegetical methods used in the ancient translations of the Bible, with those used in the apocryphal and Jewish-Hellenistic literature from the Second Temple period, and with the ancient tannaitic homilies. Diachronically, Qumran exegetical types may be studied in relation to other Jewish sectarian exegetical types, such as those of the Middle Ages and especially the ancient Karaite exegesis.’, Nitzan, ‘Approaches to Biblical Exegesis in Qumran Literature’, in Tov et al. (eds.), ‘Approaches to Biblical Exegesis in Qumran Literature’, p. 348 (2003).
[2] ‘during Judaism of the late Second Temple period there was widespread use of exegetical principles.’, Brooke, ‘Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context’ p. 15 (1985).
[3] ‘“Charismatic exegesis” is an umbrella term for a wide variety of methods of biblical interpretation that share several core features: (1) it is commentary; (2) it is inspired; (3) it has an eschatological orientation; and (4) it was a type of prophecy prevalent during the late Second Temple period (Aune 1993, 126-127).’, Aune, ‘The Westminster Dictionary of New Testament and Early Christian Literature and Rhetoric’, p. 92 (2003).
[4] ‘Ultimately, however, the scriptures do receive treatment in the NT similar in method to the Jewish use of scripture. It is noteworthy that those authors (and sometimes their audiences) most closely associated with demonstrating (or hearing), consciously or unconsciously, some continuity with the Jewish tradition more clearly use exegetical methods acceptable to Jewish ears.’, ibid., p. 15.
[5] ‘So in Philo and in the targumic texts that more certainly predate the fall of the Temple are to be found various exegetical techniques some of which were later named and officially recognized in tannatic Judaism and some of which were not.’, ibid., p. 16.
[6] ‘Daniel 9 bears witness to two newly emerging forms of revelatory exegesis, each of which becomes increasingly popular in the Second Temple Period, especially at Qumran.’, Jassen, ‘Mediating the Divine: Prophecy and Revelation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Second Temple Judaism’, p. 219 (2007).
[7] ‘Lieberman concludes that the rabbis, in attempting to expound and preserve the viewpoint of just one part of Judaism at the time, undoubtedly utilized exegetical principles accepted all over the critical world of the time; this they did in order to be understood and appreciated by their contemporaries, that their interpretations should be seen to be valid.’, Brooke, ‘Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context’ pp. 14-15 (1985).
[8] ‘Of the precise age and origin of the middot we cannot be sure, but of their use, though without technical categorization, in the late Second Temple period, there seems to be increasing evidence; the following examples from Philo and the targums are adduced in support of such a conclusion.’, ibid., p. 17.
[9] ‘except for the presence of traditional Judaism in a variety of forms, the general Hellenistic culture prevalent at the time of Philo would not produce very different trends of exegesis in “Greek” Alexandria and “Jewish” Palestine, the whole geographical area being Hellenistic.’, ibid., p. 18.
[10] ‘Other decisions based on this technique are recorded in the covenant of Nehemiah 10. These show beyond any doubt that the use of the midrashic method for the determination of Jewish law in cases where the Pentateuch was either unclear or apparently contradictory became the norm in the Persian period. It remained in use for the derivation of new conclusions until well into the Middle Ages, and at the same time, as we will see, often served as a means of justifying legal rulings already practiced on the basis of ancient tradition. To avoid confusion one point should be made very clear; the term midrash designates both an exegetical method and a collection of literary materials based on midrashic exegesis.’, Schiffman, ‘From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism’, p. 48 (1991).
[11] ‘The duplications in the Torah begged to be interpreted. Thus was born the method which later Hebrew termed midrash. Essentially, the exegetical (interpretative) technique of midrash can be defined as the explanation of one biblical passage in the light of another. In its earliest forms, midrash dealt with matters of Jewish law, what the rabbis later called halakhah. In the early Second Temple Period, the new dependence on the written law stipulated the development of the method of legal midrash. Its earliest record is in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.’, ibid., pp. 47-48.
[12] Longnecker, ‘Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period’ (1999).
[13] ‘Several passages from the Gospels provide examples of a form of exegesis employed by Jesus having considerable similarity to the pesher technique found at Qumran.’, Helyer, ‘Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students’, p. 239 (2002).
[14] ‘When all is said and done, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Paul shared with Qumran an approach to the Scripture that we can designate as pesher.’, ibid., p. 244.
[15] ‘Other NT writers besides the Evangelists and Paul display the pesher technique. Longnecker draws attention to the employment of a pesher type of approach to Scripture in the Petrine epistles and Jude as well.’, ibid., p. 245
[16] ‘Acts 2 demonstrates essentially the same exegetical method as at Qumran, namely a contemporizing of the prophecy in the new-covenant community.’, ibid., p. 238.
[17] ‘It is not surprising, therefore, to discover a list, very similar to that attributed to Hillel, in the introduction to Sifra. That list of thirteen principles expounded by R. Ishmael follows the order of the seven; it contains five exegetical principles that are variations on the twofold principle of “the general and particular” and “the particular and the general.”’, Brooke, ‘Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in Its Jewish Context’, p. 12 (1985).
