History of Individual Interpretation in OT?

[JRKH]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this but here goes.

I am interested in knowing how the Jews of the OT viewed the idea of interpreting scripture.
In other words, is there a scriptural foundation for the non-catholic idea of the individual reading and interpreting the “Scriptures” entirely seperate from the “Church”. (In the OT, the Church in Jerusalem, or the NT, the Church in Rome)
It seems that the Jews had a tradition of meeting at the temples and public squares and discussing various scriptures, but was this independant of the Temple in Jerusalem or were conclusions and ideas subject to approval by the heirarchy.

The reason for this question is simple. I am trying to establish for myself the biblical basis for the Non-catholics position on church and bible. I have already satisfied myself that seperation from mother church is a disaster in progress as demonstrated in the OT by the splitting of the Northern Kingdom from the Temple in Jerusalem. The result is that the 10 tribes have been lost to history and absorbed into other peoples.

Now I would like to establish the biblical basis for “individual interpretation”, or the error there of.

Peace
James

 

[COPLAND_3]

I am no expert on this topic by any means, but I do know of some areas to consider.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: There are so many writings found among those scrolls such as commentaries on the Biblical books, you also have the Damascus Document and the Community Rule which are sort of rule books. Here is a link to the DD pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/zadokite.html

Josephus is another source to consult to determine how Jews interpreted Scripture.

Philo is another great source, he had a allegorical approach himself.

I would study the different sects of the Jews such as the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, etc. Here is what appears to be a good source for that jewfaq.org/movement.htm

 

[mackbrislawn]

Not sure if this is the right place to put this but here goes.

I am interested in knowing how the Jews of the OT viewed the idea of interpreting scripture.
In other words, is there a scriptural foundation for the non-catholic idea of the individual reading and interpreting the “Scriptures” entirely seperate from the “Church”. (In the OT, the Church in Jerusalem, or the NT, the Church in Rome)
It seems that the Jews had a tradition of meeting at the temples and public squares and discussing various scriptures, but was this independant of the Temple in Jerusalem or were conclusions and ideas subject to approval by the heirarchy.

The reason for this question is simple. I am trying to establish for myself the biblical basis for the Non-catholics position on church and bible. I have already satisfied myself that seperation from mother church is a disaster in progress as demonstrated in the OT by the splitting of the Northern Kingdom from the Temple in Jerusalem. The result is that the 10 tribes have been lost to history and absorbed into other peoples.

Now I would like to establish the biblical basis for “individual interpretation”, or the error there of.

Peace
James

I think this is a very important question.

Peter may have an answer for this in 2Peter 3:16. In this passage Peter seems to indicate that prior teaching is required in order for someone to understand scripture properly. “There are certain things in the letters of Paul that are hard to understand, that the untaught and unstable distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the scripture.”

The untaught that Peter mentions would have to be those people who have not been taught the Christian basics by a legitimate Chiristan evangelist. So, this means that if one is not already a Christian, the probability of misunderstanding scripture is very high, leading to disastrous consequences.

The conclusion to be drawn is that scripture is not intended for non-christians and not written for those who are ignorant of authentic Christian teachings, such as someone reading a Gideon bible in a motel room.

The same idea applies to the Jews of the OT as well. After all, not many of them could read, nor did many families have their own copies of scrolls of scripture. So, how did they gain access to scripture? By belonging to a group that did have copies of scripture, and by assembling every week so scripture could be read to them.

Note that in this situation, everyone is assembling as a group, and hearing the word of God collectively, at the same time, not individually. You belonged to the family of God, and recieved God’s word in scripture as a member of that family. Futhermore, this process began as a small child, because Paul says that Timothy learned his OT scripture from infancy.

All discussions of scripture, then, occurred in the prior context of the family of God, the congregation of God. Church, if you will.

 

[JRKH]

I am no expert on this topic by any means, but I do know of some areas to consider.

The Dead Sea Scrolls: There are so many writings found among those scrolls such as commentaries on the Biblical books, you also have the Damascus Document and the Community Rule which are sort of rule books. Here is a link to the DD pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/zadokite.html

Josephus is another source to consult to determine how Jews interpreted Scripture.

Philo is another great source, he had a allegorical approach himself.

I would study the different sects of the Jews such as the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, etc. Here is what appears to be a good source for that jewfaq.org/movement.htm

Thanks for the links. They look great. I’ll try to take a look when I can. Unforturnately I don’t have a lot of time for such research. What I’m really looking for is more of a general idea of how the OT Jews would have viewed the idea of “personal interpretation”.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I think this is a very important question.

Peter may have an answer for this in 2Peter 3:16. In this passage Peter seems to indicate that prior teaching is required in order for someone to understand scripture properly. “There are certain things in the letters of Paul that are hard to understand, that the untaught and unstable distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the scripture.”

The untaught that Peter mentions would have to be those people who have not been taught the Christian basics by a legitimate Chiristan evangelist. So, this means that if one is not already a Christian, the probability of misunderstanding scripture is very high, leading to disastrous consequences.

The conclusion to be drawn is that scripture is not intended for non-christians and not written for those who are ignorant of authentic Christian teachings, such as someone reading a Gideon bible in a motel room.

**The same idea applies to the Jews of the OT as well. After all, not many of them could read, nor did many families have their own copies of scrolls of scripture. So, how did they gain access to scripture? By belonging to a group that did have copies of scripture, and by assembling every week so scripture could be read to them.

Note that in this situation, everyone is assembling as a group, and hearing the word of God collectively, at the same time, not** individually. You belonged to the family of God, and recieved God’s word in scripture as a member of that family. Futhermore, this process began as a small child, because Paul says that Timothy learned his OT scripture from infancy.

All discussions of scripture, then, occurred in the prior context of the family of God, the congregation of God. Church, if you will.

Thank you.
Certainly the availabilty of written scripture and the abiltity to read them were limiting factors at the time. Wasn’t there a custom in those days to meet and discuss Scripture? It seems that a child (Jesus), even at age twelve, was able to freely discuss scripture in the temple.
In relation to the bolded section. Would a group of Jews at a particular synagoge been free to interpret a given passage however they saw fit or were interpretations of the laws and prophets more or less governed centrally?

Thanks again for your help.

Peace
James

 

[mackbrislawn]

Thank you.
Certainly the availabilty of written scripture and the abiltity to read them were limiting factors at the time. Wasn’t there a custom in those days to meet and discuss Scripture? It seems that a child (Jesus), even at age twelve, was able to freely discuss scripture in the temple.
In relation to the bolded section. Would a group of Jews at a particular synagoge been free to interpret a given passage however they saw fit or were interpretations of the laws and prophets more or less governed centrally?

Thanks again for your help.

Peace
James

Yes, it does seem that the Jews could freely discuss scripture; they certainly they could get up in the synagogue and speak. The apostles did that early on. Now, the question as posed asks whether Jews could get up and interpret. Yes. But, could a non-Jew do that? What do you think? That is, could someone from outside the Covenant, outside the congregation of God, get up and give his opinions to the Jews about their own scripture? Were outsiders welcome to get up and interpret the Jews’ scriptures? Did the Jews regard the scriptures as belonging to the Gentiles as well? Because it seems that equivalent thing does happen today in regard to the Christian scripture, to everyone’s considerable confusion.

The Pharisees believed in a resurrection, the Sadducees didn’t; this would indicate there was not a central authority telling everybody what was what. (Of course, a complicating factor is that we can’t say that all the Jews of that day accepted the same canon of scripture, hence variant understandings among different Jewish groups.)

However, Jesus did say in regard to the scribes and Pharisees that since they had sat on the seat of Moses, you had to do what they said, even if not to do what they did. “Do as they say, not as they do.” Was this “Seat of Moses” a form of central authority recognized by Jesus? Moses laid hands on Joshua to pass his mantle on to the next generation. Did the Pharisees possess this mantle? We know the Pharisees laid all sorts of burdens on the people through their interpretations, which means Pharisees must have thought they had such a mantle.

Actually, in the Catholic church today there is room for considerable discussion about scripture and doctrine, within the bounds of the Magisterium. Was there a Jewish Magisterium?

 

[JRKH]

Yes, it does seem that the Jews could freely discuss scripture; they certainly they could get up in the synagogue and speak. The apostles did that early on. Now, the question as posed asks whether Jews could get up and interpret. Yes. But, could a non-Jew do that? What do you think? That is, could someone from outside the Covenant, outside the congregation of God, get up and give his opinions to the Jews about their own scripture? Were outsiders welcome to get up and interpret the Jews’ scriptures? Did the Jews regard the scriptures as belonging to the Gentiles as well? Because it seems that equivalent thing does happen today in regard to the Christian scripture, to everyone’s considerable confusion.

The Pharisees believed in a resurrection, the Sadducees didn’t; this would indicate there was not a central authority telling everybody what was what. (Of course, a complicating factor is that we can’t say that all the Jews of that day accepted the same canon of scripture, hence variant understandings among different Jewish groups.)

However, Jesus did say in regard to the scribes and Pharisees that since they had sat on the seat of Moses, you had to do what they said, even if not to do what they did. “Do as they say, not as they do.” Was this “Seat of Moses” a form of central authority recognized by Jesus? Moses laid hands on Joshua to pass his mantle on to the next generation. Did the Pharisees possess this mantle? We know the Pharisees laid all sorts of burdens on the people through their interpretations, which means Pharisees must have thought they had such a mantle.

Actually, in the Catholic church today there is room for considerable discussion about scripture and doctrine, within the bounds of the Magisterium. Was there a Jewish Magisterium?

Yes!!
Good information. Thanks.
Also Good Questions. That is what I am trying to determine. Was there some sort of central authority within Judaism that tried to tackle and resolve such issues.
Of course another point that I had not considered is that the Jews would have been trying to understand scripture while it was still being revealed. :whacky:

Peace
James

 

[Robbinson]

Yes!!
Good information. Thanks.
Also Good Questions. That is what I am trying to determine. Was there some sort of central authority within Judaism that tried to tackle and resolve such issues.
Of course another point that I had not considered is that the Jews would have been trying to understand scripture while it was still being revealed. :whacky:

Peace
James

Yes - the Sanhedrin was a governing body of respected authority. Thus, Jesus was brought to the “high priest” for trial in the gospels. Note also the reference to the “Chair of Moses” in the NT scriptures - this is a concept (much like the papacy) of an ultimate seat of authority. But the Sandhedrin was effectively destroyed in 70 AD with the destruction of the second temple - thus the birth of “rabbinic judaism”.

That being said, the Talmud (which predates the destruction of the second temple and which continued to evolve/grow thereafter) is a compendium of thinking by rabbis with competing thoughts on just about all issues of scripture. It doesn’t provide “doctrinal answers” like a catechism, but rather demonstrates the breath of various interpretations held by differing rabbis over the ages.

So - in some respects, ancient biblical judsaism was like the Catholic Church (a central authority in the sanhedren), but in others, its very much like the post reformation - various interpretations by different “schools” of thinking. In deed, there is a formal “denomination” deliniation today among Jews (Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) - with varients of each Hassidic, reconstructionist, etc).

Blessings,

Brian