Jewish theology intersects with Christian theology in many areas. As of late, I have been taking a course on Jewish interpretation. In it, I was struck by an intersection I never noticed before: hermeneutical method. A number of the same questions and concerns arise. How does the Hebrew Bible say something meaningful to contemporary culture? What is the nature of theological claims throughout the books of Scripture? What is a literal method OR what is a “spiritual” method of interpretation? What is interpretation and how does it honor YHWH?
Unfortunately, we tend to associate Jewish theology and Judaism with a systematic approach to the Hebrew Bible (e.g. a Judaized-version of soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology and the like). However, being two communities that take the Bible seriously, Christianity and Judaism run into the same walls with regards to reading Scripture theologically.
Take for example the Jewish scholar, Ibn Ezra (1089-1164). He wrote an assortment of commentaries in Luca (1145) and was considered a sod morah (“a great grammarian”). In one of his commentaries, he drew up some of these aforementioned questions: What is the principle task of a commentary? How does one adjudicate between multiple interpretations? Which form of interpretation has access to “divine truth”?
Incidentally, there were at least three groups (possibly in keeping with the Jewish “four-fold”) he was addressing in his interpretive method. First, there were the Karaites or, in our terms, the “literalists.” According to Ezra, they mock the rabbinic approach because it jettisons the “use of reason.” There is, to the Karaites, a single, rational meaning to the text and that one valence trumps any other interpretive “fancies.” Sound familiar?
There were also the “allegorists,” inventing secret conversations within the text, only apparent to those who understand how God speaks in “riddles.” Ibn Ezra essentially responds by showing how one must understand “the text as text” before one finds how it functions as a super-structure for deeper meanings (something Ezra was not disagreeing with). Not a bad retort; it is something you would probably hear in a hermeneutics course!
Third, you have the “sages.” Here, the appeal to authority and interpretation lies in the tradition. Vast cycles of aggadic midrash were all the rage for this particular enclave. Ibn Ezra recognizes the unbroken chain of tradition as well as the handing down of Torah to Moses. But he also recognizes how a verse does not lose its “literal” meaning despite the many layers of commentary that might shade the text. By “literal,” Ezra means interpreting the “verbal structures of Scripture” (genres and theological direction) and following the patterns of God’s “public language.” These texts are not riddles for a private audience nor are they simply logic-constructions that could operate apart from God’s Spirit. For Ibn Ezra, faith comes first (he begins his commentary with an invocation and prayer for understanding), with theology, philology and philosophy taking up their respective roles in harmony.
Of course, the regula fidei of Christianity is not the same as the “regula fidei” of Jewish theology. Still, it is fruitful to acknowledge the massive interpretive history of Israel, both ancient and rabbinic because this community also reads the Hebrew Bible and struggles with the implications.
Rod, Ruler and Standard 