One central issue for everyone who desires to walk humbly with God is how we understand scripture. I know ליש would be interested in defining which texts are considered "scripture", but for now I'm speaking generally.
There are many questions that arise when we approach these texts. Broadly we may want to know what these ancient texts mean for us today. Naturally, we come with our own assumptions. Some approach them from a critical perspective, attempting to dissect the texts as one would any other ancient text. On the other side, there are those who see it as the eternal Word of God and there is no room for modern critical analysis.
I personally sit somewhere in between. I believe God spoke to people and they wrote it down. I also believe that these human writers were writing in a cultural context. In addition, there is the issue of transmission and questions of scribal errors or additions, but I'm not addressing these right now.
The issue I want to raise is the importance of context. I disagree strongly with the classical Rabbinic approach, in which a verse or phrase can be used to prove their point based on the use of a particular word. Their approach is founded on the assumption that there is no past of future with God's Word. Since it is eternal context is irrelevant. I believe it is dangerous to "pluck" a line out of context to prove a point. Beyond a cultural context there is the immediate textual context. Writers are expressing certain thoughts and we need to try to understand the train of thought. For example, I could use two different phrases in Shaul's letter to the Galations to "prove" opposite ideas. Therefore, when I discuss my understanding of something and I want to show how it is expressed in a particular passage I'll quote it while trying to keep in mind the textual context. I also judge individual thoughts arising from a certain passage against the larger picture I see in scripture.
One significant phrase, for example, which in my opinion has been taken out of context, that influences our daily life in Israel is Ex. 34: 26b: לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו Do not boil a kid in his mother's milk.
Just according to my own logic I've never thought that the intention was eating a cheeseburger. It definitely is not referring to a cream soup with a chicken broth base.
I've read articles examining possible parallels to cultic practices in other ancient cultures to explain what this might mean. In my opinion the textual context tells us a lot, and I only paid attention to this recently.
This commandment is given after instructions regarding the three pilgrim festivals (Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot). [note: As I continued to read the parashot I realized that this same commandment is given again, Deut. 14:21, in the context of which animals should and should not be eaten.]
V. 25 "Do not slaughter with a fermented thing the blood of My sacrifice; and the sacrifice of the feast of the passover shall not remain till morning:"
V. 26 "the first of the first-fruits of the land you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God; Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk."
It is clear from the context, at least to me, that this is not a general command regarding meat and dairy. The previous commandments very specifically refer to aspects of different festivals. Logic would say that "boiling a kid in his mother's milk" would fit in this same category. Granted I still do not understand the connection and background to this commandment, but I believe based on context alone we can say with a high degree of certainty that it is related to a cultic practice.
My point with this example is that context is vital for proper interpretation. As soon as we read and try to understand any text we interpret it. I don't believe we can be one hundred percent objective, but my hope is that we strive for it.
Well, I'm certainly not going to argue against "the value of context"! I agree that it is always critical to check the context of a particular passage.
ReplyDeleteNot only rabbinic, but also much Christian teaching tends to distort textual intention by taking passages out of context. Looking at Jewish and Christian thinkers as a whole throughout history, some have been very concerned with context while others have disregarded it completely.
Two questions; I'm curious how you will respond:
1) Torah covers a wide variety of issues; sometimes a shift takes place from one topic to another. How can we be sure that the pilgrimage festivals are connected to this commandment?
2) Some argue that the Messianic Writings ("New Testament") quote verses from Tanakh out of context. For example, Hosea 11:1 states:
כי נער ישראל ואהבהו
וממצרים קראתי לבני
[For Israel was a lad, and I loved him;
And from Egypt I called my son.]
This appears to be a reference to the nation of Israel coming out of slavery in Egypt. However, Matthew 2:14-15 remarks that Yeshua's parents took him to Egypt and stayed there for some time
ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος·
ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.
[in order for what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet to be fulfilled, saying: out of Egypt I called my son.]
The original context (Hosea) does not suggest to us that this verse refers specifically to the Messiah. Yet the interpretation in MW (Matyah) suggests that it could have a dual significance and be directly applicable to the life of Messiah. What do you say about an instance like this?
1. I agree many times subjects change completely. Take Lev. 19 for example. I believe, however, one can tell for the most part when this occurs.
ReplyDeleteIn this case I think it is not a change of subject. First of all, note that it is only a clause in the verse. While the original text did not have "verses", editors who added the vowels and tropes viewed them as connected. I would think it would be odd for this one random clause been thrown in there with no connection. If you go back to the example of Lev. 19 there many different commandments with no connection to one another. This pattern is more prevalent, rather than a consistent theme with one random idea. Of course I recognize that the Torah is not as systematic as we would think at times, but I also don't see at as stream of consciousness.
2. This point is well taken, and I am very aware of it. I don't really have a clear answer.
I tend to think there is a difference, somewhat, with the nature of how Matityahu "takes the verse out of context" and how rabbis do so in the example of the milk for the purpose of halakhah. I'm not sure I could fully express how I see it as different because I tried in conversation with Yirmeyahu and was not successful.
On another note, I appreciate your point that some Jewish and Christian thinkers have been concerned with understanding texts in context. I completely agree, and my intention was not to make a generalization, but rather point to tendencies. For example, in reading early Midrashim (collected in the Mishnaic period), it is clear that context is not in their lexicon.