Search

There are similarities between the way Targum Jonathan explains the Hebrew texts and the way the New Testament authors use the same texts. However, it is hard to identify the exact relationship between Targum Jonathan and the New Testament. Two examples of “Targumic” translations in the New Testament are explored in this article: Acts 13:21–22 and James 5:7–8. All in all, we can say that (1) it is hard to find identical forms of exegesis, although there are several similar cases and parallels; (2) we must do our best to describe similar cases as precise as possible, because there are both similarities and contradictions in all these cases; (3) there is no direct relationship between Targum Jonathan and the New Testament; but (4) they can be used cautiously as a means to better understand each other and (5) to better understand how Jewish authors – I include the New Testament Jewish followers of Jesus here – read and understood their Scriptures.

Copyright of Collectanea Theologica is the property of Uniwersytet Kardynala Stefana Wyszynskiego w Warszawie and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Booklet Voor ons ons Jodendom en niet het Christendom (For us our Judaism and not Christianity) written by Chief Rabbi Justus Tal (1945) Immediately after the Second World War, the Dutch Chief Rabbi Justus Tal published a booklet in which he defended the Jewish exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and opposed the Protestant Christian interpretation of this holy book. His purpose was to prevent the conversion of Jews to Christianity. This contribution sketches the context in which the booklet appeared and confronts it briefly with some more recent tendencies in the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of eHumanista is the property of Professor Antonio Cortijo-Ocana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Philo of Alexandria was a Hellenistic Jew, one of the greatest scholars of the first century and was often cited as a model exegete and philosopher, known for his unique philosophical approach, which incorporated elements of Jewish thought and Greek philosophy, who in his works used the method of allegorical interpretation, in addition to the literal and spiritual or mystical. Allegory is the exegetical procedure that leads us to a transcendent meaning of the word, in another area of higher meaning, the purpose being to eliminate certain ambiguities and ambiguities of the analyzed text. He is the one who in his works made a synthesis of the Jewish traditions with the philosophy of his time, the Greek, especially with Platonism, but not only, but also Stoic and Neo-Pythagorean, all this to make an exposition with the universal links of faith. He was an exegete who was well integrated into the culture of his age as well as the context of his generation. The two interpretation methods of Philonian exegesis, the allegorical and the literal, in the exegetical process of analyzing the sacred text are used in a symbiosis and complementarity for the ultimate goal, highlighting the Word of God, for understanding and restoring in our consciousness his love God for us. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "Aqedah" (the binding or sacrifice of Isaac) is one of the most commented episodes of the Book Genesis. In the postexilic and intertestamentarian period it gains more and more importance. Not only Abrahams obedience and faithfulness, but also Isaacs pretended agreement to be sacrificed became topoi of the Jewish exegesis. In the Books of Macabees, in the Book of Jubilees, and in the hellenistic-Jewish literature, Isaac arises gradually as a typos of martyr, whose merits concern all the future generations of Israel. In the rabbinic literature (Targumim, Mekhilta, Midrashim) this line of interpretation has been further developed. Isaac's merits have an important role for the Jewish religious praxis after the destruction of the Tempel (70 CE) and the interruption of the sacrificial cult, which has been replaced by prayers including Gen 22. In the Christian tradition before Origen Isaac is mainly a typos of Christ. Probably Origen's audience also knew of the typology Isaac/Christ and expected to hear of it from the exegete. Nevertheless he prefers to dedicate more attention to the figure of Abraham and ignores any presumptuous agreement of Isaac to be sacrificed. For long parts of the HomGen VIII (dealing with the Aqedah) he neglects the typology Isaac/Christ and follows quasi in literal manner the Biblical narrative. This typology appears in the end of HomGen VIII and is used in HomGen IX in polemical sense against Judaism, when Origen deals with the promises made to Abraham after the binding of Isaac. The answer to the question, why did he mainly neglect this typology interpreting the Aqedah, could be searched in the polemics with his Jewish interlocutors and probably concerns the views of his public. The martyr-role of Isaac appears in the pre-Christian period and probably influenced the typology Isaac/Christ, as many scholars suppose. Nevertheless we can state that also the rabbinic exegesis seems to accept some Christological characteristic in the interpretation of Isaac. The purpose of the present paper is to explore reciprocal influences between Jewish and Christian exegesis of the Aqedah considering Origen's homilies on Genesis and some fragments from the catenas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The basic axiom of Judaism over the generations has been that the Torah is of divine origin and was transmitted to Israel by Moses. Numerous and diverse notions regarding the composition of the Torah and Moses' role in writing it can and have been derived from this conservative doctrine, however. To date, no full and exhaustive inquiry into the matter having been conducted into the subject, some relevant sources and the relationship between the diverse views or their influence on one another still awaiting investigation. This paper seeks to fill this lacuna, focusing on the most primary and influential developmental stages of the tenet, and demonstrating that the emergence of these has largely been determined by polemics with other religious groups, including Pagans, Christians, Muslims, and Karaites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article deals with the exegetical approach of the early Jewish school. It discusses the meaning and definition of midrash as a distinctive approach in Jewish interpretation. The relationship between midrash and exegesis is also examined. It is shown how the process of interpretation is affected by the use of midrash principles. It is also pointed out that the ancient interpretative method of midrash had social relevancy. The midrashic interpreters maintained the interest of the community and fulfilled the needs of their generation. The conclusion is drawn that early Jewish exegetes did not explain the text for its inherent meaning, but rather for its use in personal purposes. They tended to read some agendas and issues into the text from the exegetes themselves and their surrounding backgrounds. They aimed to meet the requirement of the social and political expectations of their reader community. Interpretation was used as a tool for this purpose. This exegetical trend is finally illustrated with some examples of interpretation of the Book of Ruth.