Tradition

Tradition… or How do I Interpret Written Torah

I believe that we need to follow the plain sense of the written Torah. The rabbis agree with me. Torah as the letter must be interpreted and applied. The rabbis agree with me. However, the rabbis have bound themselves to the authority of the oral law which they assert is necessary to arrive at a correct understanding of the “plain sense” of the written Torah. I disagree with the rabbis.

It would be absolutely foolish of me to denigrate rabbinic tradition (masorah) and Scripture interpretation (midrash) and to claim the “plain sense” of the Holy Writ, unless I openly acknowledge the interpretive biases and presuppositions that inform my exegetical adventure through written Torah. In other words it is impossible to interpret Scripture in a vacuum. We naturally default to our cultural perspective and values while reading Scripture. To claim *the* “plain sense” without allowing myself to acknowledge my philosophical underpinnings and hermeneutical means would be naïve.

Midrash (used hereafter for traditional rabbinic “exegesis”) is conducted very differently than the historical-grammatical hermeneutic of Protestantism. Midrash does not ask critical questions and is willing to accept sub-literal and unlikely readings of written Torah. Characteristically Protestant historical-grammatical readings ask questions of original audience, author intent, exigency (reason for writing), genre, cultural and historical milieus, language, and textual transmission (with alternative readings in variant manuscripts). Though I see great, great benefit in midrash, it pales in comparison to an historical-grammatical reading of written Torah. What value is there, then, in midrash? Midrash allows the reader to peak into the historical development of rabbinic Judaism and the halalkhic situations that were being dealt with at the time of any given midrash’s composition.

Brief note: The AS are content with using midrashic (or pesher-like) style application of Scripture. This is another issue in itself and differs from the halakhic process.

I start my interpretation of written Torah with an historical-grammatical and critical reading of any given passage. My pursuit of the most-likely reading of the text includes the asking of questions that pertain to the way in which the original recipients would have understood and applied the passage or commandment. After arriving at a level of comfort with the literal meaning of the text, I consult whatever midrashes or Jewish legal codes of relevance. But, I do not limit myself to rabbinic material. This is important to me, I also consider the testimony of non-rabbinics such as the historical Karaites (very important), Philo and Josephus (also very important), the Qumran sect (generally as a counter-example for what not to do), the Psuedopigrapha, the Targums, the church fathers, etc. I consult these sources when they provide examples of how others have applied a commandment to their situations.

I diverge from Protestant hermeneutics in my reliance on historical Jewish sources. I call this the “burden of inheritance.” When there is a net voice within the Jewish sources, I prefer to side with the historical application of Torah. Generally, the “plain sense” of the written Torah will agree with the “burden of inheritance” or written Torah will at least give an open door to it. I find this to be the most balanced approach to the value of historical Jewish readings. I acknowledge their methodological weaknesses, but I refuse to ignore them.

My friend Nate Long (www.natelong.com) posted the following on his blog:

“We do not want you to copy or imitate us. We want to be like a ship that has crossed the ocean, leaving a wake of foam, which soon fades away. We want you to follow the Spirit, which we have sought to follow, but which must be sought anew in every generation.”

This was taken from Why We Live In Community by Eberhard Arnold. I see this concretion as the ideal way to approach historical halakhah—not as concrete but rather as fluid. We can use it for a frame of reference, but it is up to the living to reapply and interpret the value of tradition to modern day exigencies.

Kol tuv,
PeterS (Tzuriel)