Introduction

Scripture Reconceived

Paul’s interpretation of scripture and the question of its relationship to rabbinic midrash have greatly occupied scholars both of New Testament and of rabbinics. Many previous studies have focused on the relationship between Paul and midrash, and almost all of them have assumed or reified a genealogical connection between these literatures, most often seeking to reconstruct Paul’s Jewish background from tannaitic sources. The present study criticizes and deconstructs this genealogical connection, while arguing that a critique of the genealogical assumption is no reason to abandon the effort to read Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim together. The introduction explains why studying these literatures comparatively is both compelling and fruitful, and also lays out the methodological constraints on such an inquiry. The comparative approach taken in this study considers Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim as part of a complex matrix in which scripture was instated as a fundamental source for legal and normative guidance in late antiquity over-against traditions independent of scripture (paradosis). It contributes to our understanding of Paul’s interpretation of scripture, which can be better understood in light of its parallels in tannaitic and Qumranic literature, with all their similarities and differences. The study of midrash also benefits from the comparative approach, which allows us (1) to trace a new history of midrashic exegesis, against existing descriptions that present it as teleologically stemming from Qumran exegesis; (2) to redefine and explain hermeneutic methods shared by these literatures; and (3) to reconsider a common understanding of midrashic hermeneutics as having developed under Alexandrian Hellenistic influence. The present study shows that, at least with regard to allegory, a different Hellenistic trajectory should be preferred. Qumran literature, Paul, and the Tannaim travail to build sacred communities based on a reworking of scriptural constructs, such as “Israel” or the “seed of Abraham.” The goal of Qumran literature is to define and negotiate membership in the yahad, an attempt to redefine the “seed of Israel” as an elite minority within the Jewish ethnos. The redefinition of community is based on eschatological convictions, argued and maintained by the reading of scripture as presented by the Teacher of Righteousness. Tannaitic hermeneutics can also be understood as an exegetical endeavor undertaken with a view to found and maintain a community on the basis of scripture, demarcating on scriptural grounds the true members of the community from those outside it and those on its borders. Paul interprets scripture with view to incorporate gentiles into a community by generating reading practices that allow them to see themselves as being addressed directly by Jewish scriptures and to understand how they must live in order to be included in eschatological redemption. Formulated as such, the comparative approach this study takes allows us to step beyond the misconstrued assumptions of “influence” or “shared heritage” that dominated Paul and midrash studies in the past. Focusing on scriptural hermeneutics as a fundamental facet of community building places two of Paul’s contemporaries—Philo and Josephus (who like Paul claimed a connection to the Pharisees)—on the margins of our study. Josephus does not work to build communities, but rather, mediates Jewish history to his Roman readership. (Josephus presents his motivation to write Antiquities, so as to provide “all of the Greeks” with the possibility to study the history of the Jews, their origins, form of government, laws and customs. Josephus especially notes that the book is meant communicate the antiquities of the Jews to “others”, see Ant. 1.1–9.) Though his rewriting of scripture in the first eleven books of Antiquities could also be studied comparatively with Paul’s interpretation of scripture, his work is of marginal relevance to the current study as he is not driven by the communal motivations central to it. Philo, similarly does not share the communal goals of Qumran, Paul, and the Tannaim, and so his work will be discussed only when immediately pertinent to the matter at hand, most prominently in our study of allegorical interpretations. The present work features three case studies. The first (Chapter 1) undertakes a comprehensive mapping of the midrash-pesher technique (also known as the “pronominal pesher”). It argues that the sectarian sources in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), Romans 10:5–13, and rabbinic literature have in common this technique, which is unknown to us from other sources. The chapter analyzes the different uses of this exegetical tool, and shows how a common method of interpretation is utilized toward different ends by these different literatures. The study of Romans 10:5–13 brings up another exegetical question: Paul constructs in Romans a contradiction between two passages (Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:12–14) which he ultimately does not resolve. This places Paul outside common exegetical practices in Jewish antiquity that display a thorough commitment to solving scriptural contradictions. Chapter 1 offers a new reading of Romans 3, which like Romans 10, also constructs the difference between righteousness by trust (pistis) and righteousness by deeds as a scriptural difference, and shows it may be used to explain Paul’s choice to leave the contradiction unresolved in Romans 10. The chapter argues that Paul has an idea of scripture as consisting of two nomoi: a nomos of trust (pistis) and a nomos of deeds. These two nomoi coexist in scripture, but they are not without contradictions, which are for Paul a scriptural fact. Paul’s notion of Torah as two Torot is then compared to other notions of double revelation. Only in tannaitic literature do we find the notion of two Torot, and Paul is the first source to mention a similar terminology, though in different form and for a different end. I use Paul’s notion of double-Nomos to reconsider and problematize the history of the terms Oral Torah and Written Torah as current scholarship conceives of it. Chapter 2 also addresses hermeneutic method, and analyzes Paul’s allegory of Hagar/Sarah in Galatians 4. Paul’s allegory has often been presented as the binary opposite of midrash. The chapter presents a close reading of Paul’s exegetical work in Galatians 4, retraces a history of allegory in Jewish antiquity (in both Hebrew and Greek literatures), and finally returns to analyze the homilies of Dorshei Rashumot in tannaitic literature. The analysis shows that the homilies of Dorshei Rashumot—identified in the early twentieth century by Jacob Z. Lauterbach as allegories, a reading that was ultimately rejected by Daniel Boyarin—are indeed midrashic-allegories. Paul’s interpretation in Galatians, which we may call “genealogical allegory,” resembles that of Dorshei Rashumot on several counts and differs significantly from Alexandrian allegories. The chapter concludes that allegory should be thought of not as a hermeneutic in and of itself, but rather as a shift to a new denotation that is established and argued for on the basis of other exegetical arguments or assumptions. Midrash and allegory are thus not binary opposites but exist instead along a continuum. Chapter 3 shifts from hermeneutic method to a consideration of hermeneutic narrative: Paul’s hermeneutics of “unveiling” in 2 Corinthians 3. Paul brings together hermeneutics and eschatology, and claims that reading “in Christ” allows (for the first time) a full and complete understanding of scripture. This he presents through the depiction of the Christ community as (reading) with unveiled faces: “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory” (3:18). The chapter compares Paul’s interpretation of the Veil of Moses (Exodus 34, the main text that Paul interprets in 2 Corinthians 3) with other interpretations of the text in Jewish antiquity. It then considers Paul’s image of “unveiled faces” in the context of a parallel term that appears in tannaitic literature: “revelation of the face” (גילוי פנים). The term occurs several times in tannaitic literature in the context of scriptural interpretation, where it denotes a shameless reading of scripture. The chapter traces a counter-hermeneutics in tannaitic (and perhaps also earlier) sources, promoting a “veiled” reading of the scriptures. The possibility that the Tannaim are directly responding to Paul’s usage in 2 Corinthians 3 is raised, and then complexified. The final chapter presents the conclusions of this study, and synthesizes its implications for our understanding of Pauline hermeneutics as well as tannaitic midrash. It demonstrates the benefits of studying Paul’s letters, Qumran literature, and tannaitic midrash together, despite the lack of literary dependence between them.

Conclusion

Reviewed by: Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later; Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017 ed. by Henryk Drawnel Michael DeVries henryk drawnel (ed.), Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later; Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017 (STDJ 133; Leiden: Brill, 2020). Pp. xiii + 478. €132/$159. This volume consists of a collection of conference papers delivered at the John Paul II Catholic University in Lublin, Poland, in honor of the seventieth anniversary of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Broad in scope, these contributions explore an array of themes within Qumran scholarship and are divided into five main thematic groupings: the text critical intersection between the Hebrew Bible and Qumran manuscripts (part 1), Qumran literature against the historical backdrop of the Second Temple period (part 2), issues of philology and paleography (part 3), wisdom and religious poetry (part 4), and studies addressing a singular issue within particular texts (part 5). Part 1 begins with two contributions from Adrian Schenker. The first, "Are There Mastercopies for Genealogically Related Biblical Texts in Qumran? The Question of Archetypes and Lineages of Biblical Text Witnesses," argues for the presence of unifying efforts within circles charged with the transmission of those texts that would later constitute the Hebrew Bible in the direction of a textual forerunner of the MT. The second, "Room for Further Investigation Opened by BHQ: Three Examples (Genesis 33:18, 20 and 35:7)," suggests understanding the differing OG readings as representing an earlier reading of the text in relation to the MT, which shows evidence of theologically driven corrections. Finally, Emanuel Tov, in "The Background and Origin of the Qumran Corpus of Scripture Texts," proposes that only one-third of the "biblical" texts at Qumran were copied locally while the remainder originated from outside Khirbet Qumran, further suggesting that texts with an affinity to either the MT, LXX, or SP derive from outside Khirbet Qumran. Opening part 2, Bartosz Adamczewski ("Are the Dead Sea Scrolls Pharisaic?") examines evidence for a possible connection between the Qumran and Pharisaic movements, if not a potential Pharisaic origin of at least some of the manuscripts at Qumran. Kenneth Atkinson ("The Changing Views of the Hasmoneans in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Examining Seventy Years of Research") surveys the scholarly debate regarding the relationship between the scrolls and the Hasmoneans, particularly with reference to paleography, archaeology, and history. In "The Wicked Priest, the Righteous Teacher, and the Yahad," Vasile Babota revisits the relationship of the "Teacher of Righteousness," the "Wicked Priest," and the emergence of the yahad. Claude Cohen-Matlofsky ("Women at Qumran? Reconsidering the Textual and Archaeological Data") reassesses the available evidence regarding the [End Page 155] presence of women at Qumran, concluding that the paucity of gendered material at Qumran, in line with other sites in the region, should not discount the potential presence of women at the Qumran site. Lastly, John J. Collins, ("The Historical Context of the Teacher and His Movement") suggests a date post-Alexander Jannaeus for the conflict between the Teacher and the Wicked Priest and thus a late second century b.c.e. date for the origin of the Qumran movement, which, according to Collins, lies within the growing sectarian disputes regarding Torah interpretation in the Hasmonean period, starting with the reign of John Hyrcanus. In part 3, Jeff S. Anderson ("Assembled Israel: Performativity in Rewritten Bible at Qumran") proposes that the performativity of the rewritten speeches of Moses constructs a shared communal identity as the fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant in the present age. Donald W. Parry ("Late Hebrew Forms in 1QIsaa") identifies thirty categories of linguistic elements in which Late Biblical Hebrew, Qumran Hebrew, or Mishnaic Hebrew is reflected in 1QIsaa, which, according to Parry, reveal the milieu and linguistic environment of the scribe at or near the time of the copying of the text (ca. 125-100 b.c.e.). Surveying past studies and suggesting areas of future engagement, Femke Siebesma-Mannens ("Qumran Hebrew from the Perspective of Verbal Valence Patterns...

The introduction discusses the impact of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls on understanding the formation of scriptures in the Hellenistic-Roman period. Rather than focusing on the closure of the canon of the Hebrew Bible, this book assesses the processes by which texts become scripture. While the contemporary understanding of “liturgical” in Judaism and Christianity is related to formal fixed prayer, this study expands the concept of liturgical to include a range of practices around the study of sacred texts in Jewish antiquity. A traditioning process occurs through such practices of revelatory discernment in which scriptural interpretation is incorporated into texts which both sacralizes and extends them. The book’s methodological framework is rooted in embodied cognition and draws on insights from anthropology, ritual theory, memory studies, and neuroscience. A center of attention is the mediating role of the liturgical body in both an individual and corporate sense.

The study on the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36), an ancient Jewish text of the third century B.C.E., presented here focuses on Enoch’s vision of the two houses (1 Enoch 14:8–25), which is usually interpreted as a vision of the heavenly temple and throne of God. This vision is investigated in the context of the dream account (1 Enoch 14–16) in its different versions (Aramaic, Greek and Old Ethiopic) and in particular with regard to the question of the relationship between scriptural interpretation and use of traditions. A close examination of the source material illustrates the complexity and the difficulties of the transmission process of this text and suggests in general a synoptic approach to the various textual witnesses. A detailed textual analysis of the vision and an in-depth comparison with ancient Jewish and Mesopotamian sources suggests that the two houses in 1 Enoch 14:8–25 should not be interpreted in accordance with the previous research opinion as distinct parts of a big temple complex, but rather as a contrast of the inferior earthly temple with the ideal heavenly sanctuary. Enoch’s vision of the two houses reflects in many ways ideas and traditions found in other works of its intellectual environment, but it also introduces with the evolution beyond the idea, that the earthly and heavenly sanctuary correspond, an essential temple theological innovation and articulates in this way one of the most radical temple critiques of ancient Judaism.

In addition to the unprecedented interest in spirituality in recent decades, both at a popular level and also as an academic discipline, there has also been a resurgence of research dealing with spirituality and scripture. It is readily acknowledged that the hegemony of the historical-critical method is no longer tenable. As a method which sees the text as an artifact of history, there is minimal, if any, attempt to understand the experience of those who produced the text; it concentrates on a literal interpretation, at the expense of the polysemous nature of scripture. Contemporary scriptural studies, however, have witnessed a sea-change in interpretive methods of such magnitude, that it is difficult to keep up with current scholarship in this field. Within this paradigm shift, the importance of a spiritual reading of scripture has now come to the fore. More specifically, reading scripture through a mystical lens, as originally seen, inter alia, in the works of Origen, has taken its place, if not centre stage, at least on the stage, and no longer in the wings. Utilising the insights of a French Carmelite, Elisabeth Catez, a mystical reading of Paul exemplifies this new, yet ancient, hermeneutical method.

The aim of the Epilogue is to show that the First Chapters had a broader and longer-lasting influence than has been appreciated up until now, and to illuminate the role they played in the history of exegesis. These Chapters, at least for several centuries, got to serve the purposes their creators must have envisioned for them, as informative guides to the reading and interpretation of Scripture. In early sixth-century Alexandria they are found in the commentaries and teaching ministry of Olympiodorus of Alexandria, for whom they served both as hermeneutical tool and as an organizing principle for the exposition of Scripture. With greater attention now given to these ancient articulations of Holy Scripture, perhaps their role in its study and exposition has not yet come to an end.

This study explores the potential of reading Buddhist scriptures as both a contemplative practice and a form of psychological healing by examining the literary characteristics and meditative value of the Lotus Sutra. Buddhist scriptures employ metaphors, symbols, poetic language, and narrative structures to appeal deeply to the reader’s emotions. These literary devices function as mechanisms for emotional arousal, affective awareness, self-reflection, and existential insight. The paper argues that reading scriptures parallels the structural features of mindfulness practice, enabling practitioners to focus on the present moment and accept internal emotions, thereby promoting mental and physical well-being. Scriptural reading encompasses both concentrative and insight meditation, incorporating psychological mechanisms that facilitate emotional healing, self-regulation, and the cultivation of compassion. Based on this perspective, the study proposes that scriptural reading may serve as a meaningful contemplative practice applicable in various domains of modern life, including education, counseling, and personal development. However, as the research primarily focuses on theoretical exploration, future studies should include empirical validation and comparative analysis across different reader groups. Despite these limitations, this study aims to propose a new interpretation of Buddhist scriptures by examining them through an integrated perspective of literary expression and meditative practice, thereby suggesting the potential expansion of Applied Buddhism into the fields of mental health and spiritual education.

Midrash (Hebrew: מדרש) is ancient rabbinic interpretation of scripture. Aggadah (Hebrew: אגדה) is rabbinic narrative. The two terms are, however, often used interchangeably to refer to those many aspects of rabbinic literature that are not related to Jewish behavior or law (Hebrew: הלכה). Rabbinic literature here refers to works composed by the rabbis in Late Antiquity, from approximately 70 ce (Common Era) up to 1000 ce (an arbitrary end point). From the time that Y. L. Zunz addressed the literature in 1832, academic study of Midrash and Aggadah has been ongoing. In the earliest years it was part of the great project of Wissenschaft des Judentums (Scientific study of Judaism), and it included historical-critical studies, philological inquiries, anthologies, translations, and critical editions of texts. More recently, scholars have compared midrashic and aggadic methods of interpretation and narration with those of religious and cultural groups contemporary with the rabbis: Hellenism and Roman paganism, patristic and Syriac Christianity, and early Islam. Throughout the study of Midrash and Aggadah, scholars have written on the theological significance of the field. Current scholarship focuses on literary interpretation of Midrash and Aggadah and the implications of their oral performance and on sensitivity to the discursive structures of rabbinic narrative, as well as the very methodologies used to study the field. Feminist and gender criticism, particularly focused on placing rabbinic narrative within the values and culture of the rabbis and their contemporaries, has also been applied to the study of these literatures, and the growth of such criticism has expanded scholarship to include work in disability studies and queer studies. The mid-20th century to date, in particular, has been a time of ferment and, since the 1970s, the study of Midrash and Aggadah has expanded broadly.

This book is a collection of essays that contribute to the debate on the contextual interpretation of scripture from an African context. The book engages biblical narratives from the lived experiences of Africans, insisting that meaning is attained only when people bring their daily experiences into their reading of scripture. The contributors examine the interaction of African peoples with the Bible in juxtaposition with the forces of colonialism, neocolonialism, patriarchy, war, and bad governance. This book gives voice to the lived experiences of African peoples in their quest for full expression of the profundity of their union with God by aiding them to unmask inhumanity and indignity. Book Event – Bible, Interpretation, and Context: Reading Meaning from an African Perspective

Henri DeLubac's work on multi-sense scriptural reading has become a major resource for Catholic and Protestant theologians seeking a new integration of biblical studies and theology. Rarely, however, is it noticed that De Lubac's account of scriptural interpretation involves a robust notion of the soul and its transformation in the Christian life – and that in linking these themes De Lubac accurately reflects a central theme of pre-modern exegesis. This article thus suggests, first, that defending a notion of soul is important for those seeking to appropriate pre-modern exegesis. The article then argues that such a project is only possible if we move beyond Harnackian notions of early Christianity's ‘hellenisation’ and see the soul as a theological doctrine. The soul is the fundamental locus of a transformation in which Christians act in and through the Spirit as members of the body of Christ. Once the status of the soul is acknowledged, we are then best able to follow De Lubac's call for the reintegration of moral-practical aspects of Christianity and the discipline of theology. The article finally argues that Christian accounts of scriptural interpretation should find their core in an understanding of scripture as a graced resource for the formation of Christians, and that these accounts should be ever attentive to the place of scripture within the drama of salvation.

At first, Hermeneutics as an interacting science was only used among the church as a method of Scripture Interpretation, with a standard system or method of hermeneutics. This hermeneutics is often referred to as Traditional Hermeneutics or Biblical Hermeneutics. However, in its development, Hermeneutics came out of biblical studies into the scope of philosophy, art, literature, and history. This hermeneutics is referred to as New Hermeneutics and appears in various variants. The purpose of this article is to introduce the New Hermeneutics system of the Postmodernist era, specifically Hans Georg Gadamer's Hermeneutics, and compare it objectively with the Biblical Hermeneutics System with the standard Grammatical-Historical method, which is often used to interpret the Bible. This study uses the comparative analysis study method to find fundamental similarities and differences between Hans Georg Gadamer's hermeneutic concepts and Biblical hermeneutics. Finally, the author makes conclusions and recommendations for Bible interpreters who are doing hermeneutics.

Jesus incorporates and makes use of Scripture mainly by use of three characteristics which are authoritative, embodied, and subversive. The characteristics of authoritative reading is demonstrated in Sabbath controversy. Jesus makes direct references to story of David(I Samuel 21:1-6) in order to justify actions of his disciples. And through use of this reference, which consists of David authority, which was bestowed upon him via being anointed, being used to protect and shield his companies illegal actions, Jesus argues that his disciples actions can thus be justified because they were with him and their deeds were made for benefit of Jesus. In addition, Jesus argues that disciples` deeds which may seem heretical on day of Sabbath can be justified based on God s original intentions for Sabbath day which emphasize that Sabbath is for benefit of human beings. Jesus identifies himself with the Son of Man, and pronounces that he is able to interpret true meaning of Sabbath by authority of Son of Man. The embodied way of reading Old Testament is made clear in conversation with rich man(10:17-31). Jesus suggests keeping Ten Commandments to man who raises question of what he should do to inherit eternal life. But after hearing that he had kept them commandments from his childhood, Jesus calls him to follow him after selling and giving all that he had. The soteriological implication beyond ethics is made clear in Jesus` suggestion. This is because keeping of commandments was understood as a way of securing eternal life and wealth was considered to be a sign of blessing of God which would be given to well-keeper of Torah. Instead, Jesus proposes that way to eternal life is to be a follower of his own, forsaking an attempt to keep soteriological sense of security in terms of obtaining wealth. It is clear that belief that he is eschatological revealer of God who does not only know Gods will perfectly but also acts according to it must be behind his proposition that following him is a way of obtaining eternal life. The subversive way of reading of Scripture is demonstrated in parables of seed growing by itself (4:26-29) and ``the mustard seed``(4:30-32), each of which refer to texts respectively from Joel (3:12-13) and Daniel (4:11-12). The parable of seed growing by itself is focused on sovereignty of God and parable of mustard seed is mainly concerned about demonstrating power of kingdom of God which grows beyond human expectations. Such an emphasis on God`s sovereignty is highlighted by incorporating into Jesus` own discourse texts from Old testament which are at end of each parable. In parable of seed growing by itself, Jesus changes metaphor of harvest from God`s judgment of nations (Joel 3:12-13) to that of harvest for God`s grace. The ``big tree`` with shelter for many birds and animals (Daniel 4:11-12), of which Jesus uses in parable of mustard seed, originally refers to king Nebuchadnezzar who brought Israelites into Babylon as captives. But Jesus makes use of parable to refer to kingdom of God which he proclaims and under which many nations find shelter. In such a subversive reading Jesus shows that kingdom of God progresses towards its fulfillment by itself and beyond human expectations. Finally, present study makes an attempt to show that source of Jesus` distinctive interpretation of Scripture is his self-understanding as an eschatological revealer of God`s will.

Recent focus on the theological interpretation of Scripture has encouraged exegetes to explore the church's doctrinal confessions as constructive hermeneutical resources for reading Scripture. Taking its cue from this suggestion, this essay places Paul's letter to the Romans in dialogue with the third article of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in order to discern both how the creed might illuminate important but oftneglected themes in Paul's theology, as well as how Romans might in turn clarify, deepen, and even transform our reading of the creed. Among the various insights to emerge from this dialogue are (1) a renewed emphasis on the importance of pneumatology, ecclesiology, baptism, and resurrection in Paul's theology in Romans and (2) the salutary (supplemental?) nature of Paul's Israel-shaped theology vis-à-vis the creed's inattention to Israel's election.