Differences between Jewish and Catholic Scriptural exegesis regarding sexuality

[1Lord1Faith]

I enjoy reading a Jewish perspective on scripture. I find it very insightful and coherent. But I have noticed in Jewish commentary such as from Chabad or My Jewish Learning, both of which cite the Midrash and other commentary, that in some passages where sexuality may be in play, either in theory or literally, there isn’t any fixation on sexuality in the same way that Catholic commentary seems to have.

For example, in Catholic commentary on the Nephilim I read that one theory is that fallen angels are having sex with people. There doesn’t seem to be any other workable Catholic commentary on it. I’ve heard the expaination about the sons of Seth and Cain, but that doesn’t make sense to me given what the text says.

Other examples are Adam and Eve, Lot and the angels who saved him; and differences in the interpretation of literal texts such as the meaning of adultery.

AFAIK the Augustian view of sexuality has had such an influence on Christian teachings that it has introduced sexuality into places that it seemingly did not exist before. I have often thought that hard liners like St. Augustine may have done some harm with their hard line viewpoints. I realize that St. Augustine’s more extreme views on sexuality have been disregarded, but the influence seems to have stuck.

Does anyone else notice this? Why would there be such fundamental differences where there should be more of a continuity?

 

[EndTimes]

I enjoy reading a Jewish perspective on scripture. I find it very insightful and coherent. But I have noticed in Jewish commentary such as from Chabad or My Jewish Learning, both of which cite the Midrash and other commentary, that in some passages where sexuality may be in play, either in theory or literally, there isn’t any fixation on sexuality in the same way that Catholic commentary seems to have.

The Midrash didn’t come into being until many centuries after Jesus walked this planet.

The OT was/is the Scriptures which Jesus attended to …

With respect to the Catholic Church,
The Authority of Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium

• supersede views such as from, e.g., Augustine,
  not to mention, e.g., that of Rabbinical Judaism…

 

[Mintaka]

Jewish women have to spend a lot of time determining exactly when their periods can be counted as done for the month, and Jewish men have to pay attention to their emissions in order to know how to.pray; but it is Christianity that focuses too much on sexuality.

Yeah, I’m sure that’s correct.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t think that’s mainstream Judaism. It doesn’t really have anything to do with sex either.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

With respect to the Catholic Church,
The Authority of Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium

• supersede views such as from, e.g., Augustine,
  not to mention, e.g., that of Rabbinical Judaism…

Yes I realize that.

I doubt that the Midrash was some sort of break of continuity from Temple Judaism though.

 

[Bithynian]

Does anyone else notice this?

I’ve not noticed any significant differences. Rashi makes the same points as most classical Christian commentaries on Nephilim (fallen angels procreating with human women), Lot and the angels (homosexuality) and myriad other verses.

 

[rf9661]

Jewish men have to pay attention to their emissions in order to know how to pray

Care to give a source for this or expound upon it?

 

[Bithynian]

Care to give a source for this or expound upon it?

Probably referring to the halachic regulations regarding ritual purification after a seminal emission, which otherwise prohibited one from engaging in Torah study, prayer and other mitzvot. As far as I know, the practice has been suspended amongst Jewish communities due to the halting of temple sacrifices.

 

[rf9661]

Yeah… I was going to say. None of those ritual purification laws are in effect today (apart from their study in order to fulfill the Mitzvah) because there are no rituals taking place anymore.

 

[EndTimes]

I doubt that the Midrash was some sort of break of continuity from Temple Judaism though.

Temple Judaism? The term Judaism was not in usage in the 1st Century AD

You mean … Mosaic Law?

The OT Scriptures certainly had strong references to illicit sex

Sodom and Gomorrah

Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery… … Stoning for breaking that Commandment

“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.” - Deut 22:

 

[1Lord1Faith]

1Lord1Faith:

Does anyone else notice this?

I’ve not noticed any significant differences. Rashi makes the same points as most classical Christian commentaries on Nephilim (fallen angels procreating with human women), Lot and the angels (homosexuality) and myriad other verses.

I think you’re right about that. In Judaism however, there is more room for exegetes to play in, so I’ve seen explanations from them about Nephilim that make more sense than the two Catholic opinions I’ve heard on it, neither of which make sense.

 

[EndTimes]

I’ve seen explanations from them about Nephilim that make more sense than the two Catholic opinions I’ve heard on it, neither of which make sense.

So you say . so please shed some more light upon that opinion… for our review…

 

[JGD]

I enjoy reading a Jewish perspective on scripture. I find it very insightful and coherent. But I have noticed in Jewish commentary such as from Chabad or My Jewish Learning, both of which cite the Midrash and other commentary, that in some passages where sexuality may be in play, either in theory or literally, there isn’t any fixation on sexuality in the same way that Catholic commentary seems to have.

For example, in Catholic commentary on the Nephilim I read that one theory is that fallen angels are having sex with people. There doesn’t seem to be any other workable Catholic commentary on it. I’ve heard the expaination about the sons of Seth and Cain, but that doesn’t make sense to me given what the text says.
…

I don’t see much focus in Catholicism on the Nephilim. I was unable to even find an entry on it in the online Catholic Encyclopedia. However, the Jewish Encyclopedia does speak of it and mentions one interpretation as the “neflim” being fallen angels who had intercourse with human women.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11442-nephilim

Ooops. Need to edit and add a post script. I did find the nephilim mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It just says that it might refer to fallen angels - but nothing at all about their “sexual activity”.

 

[Mintaka]

The point is that any religion which deals with human life is going to “focus” on sexuality in some way. Early Christianity did not focus on sexuality any more or any less than Second Temple Judaism, or any other form of Judaism. Almost every Christian teaching about sex is almost exactly the same as Jewish teaching, or can be seen as a slightly stricter or slightly less strict version of standard teachings.

If you want weird focus on sex, it is St. Ambrose who went all ethnic pagan Roman on certain topics. And he was a lot more liberal about it than a lot of his Roman ancestors would have been. Or there is St. Epiphanius; but he was groomed as a minor by a weird sect and then got out, so he was a bit allergic to certain topics, poor guy.

Diversify your reading, and you will see.

 

[JGD]

Thanks Mintaka. My response wasn’t really about who focused more on sex though. Rather it was on the nephilim and showing that the Catholic encyclopedia commentary on the Nephilim did not show any greater “fixation on sexuality” than the Jewish encyclopedia commentary.

I think the amount of writing by religious scholars in various periods of history probably has to do with what’s going on at the time in the prevailing culture. When the sexual conduct and moral standards degrade, you’re going to have more instruction by faithful religious leaders - written and oral - in order to combat it.

 

[EndTimes]

Rather it was on the nephilim and showing that the Catholic encyclopedia commentary on the Nephilim did not show any greater “fixation on sexuality” than the Jewish encyclopedia commentary.

Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition and Magisterium take precedence over, e.g., Cath. Encyc.

Genesis 6

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] humans forever, for they are mortal[b]; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Noah and the Flood​

9 This is the account of Noah and his family.

Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

 

[EndTimes]

but it is Christianity that focuses too much on sexuality.

Yeah, I’m sure that’s correct.

Correct?
Or…
The POV of a non-Christian Jew?