Thinking Like A Hebrew by Morris Salge
Thinking Like A Hebrew by Morris Salge
Thinking Like A Hebrew by Morris Salge
Hebrew
The background around why Jesus pissed off the
Pharisees, Sadducees and other Jewish Leaders SO MUCH
The tenses in English and other Bible translations of the Old Testament have been added by
the translators
Ancient Hebrew does not support abstraction in the way Greek thought and logic does;
therefore it seems odd to Americans who are steeped in Greek logic from kindergarten on
Hebrew people (still at times) use cluster or topical logic (Morris' term; others call it "block
logic") where Greek logic is linear and sequential, Hebrew logic is topical and fine with
contradictions; almost all logic in the church since ~200 AD is Greek, not Hebraic
Ancient Hebrew is concrete and active - nouns are as active as verbs - the Hebrew noun
translated as "king" is actually "king that reigns" not the static label "king"
The ancient language has very few abstract terms - for example anger is an abstract term;
the Hebrew term for anger is "hot nose" a very concrete term for nostril dilation; therefore
ancient Hebrew seems blunt and at times harsh
Jewish Life
Is directed by Halakhah
Halakhah Includes
Oral Torah grew as sages, then scribes, then Pharisees and finally rabbis
adapted the Oral Law to a changing world; The Pharisees held that the Oral
Torah was binding independently of the Written Torah (& the whole Tanakh)
The Sadducees rejected the Pharisees Oral Torah, but had their own (nonbinding) book of decrees ("Book of Decrees"), which is speculated as
probably exegetically derived from the Tanakh
All material passed from teacher to student; teachers kept written notes, but
taught verbally; so the material could written down, but not passed on in written
form; verbal teaching was mandatory
Oral Torah was considered superior since it allowed the student to have a
dialogue with the teacher and thereby gain real understanding, where written
material was seen as impeding this dialogue since it allowed untutored
interpretation
Between 132 and 135 AD, Rome suppressed the second Jewish rebellion (the first was
in 70 AD). This 132 AD event was the Bar Kohkba messianic rebellion.
The Romans wiped Israel from the map; in 70 AD the Temple was destroyed; after 135
AD nothing was left of the country; the population was scattered over many areas and
the Zealots, Essenes, Sadducees ceased to exist; the Pharisees, however, remained
The destruction of Israel broke the Hebrews ability to somewhat uniformly pass the Oral
Torah from teacher to student; the continued existence of the Pharisees and those like
them, however, offered a solution - write it down
Therefore, the Oral Torah was written down at this time (135 AD to ~200 AD; although
there are significant additions in 1500's and 1600's) - the material recorded in these
ally centuries became the Talmud, which contains the Mishnah & its commentaries the Gemera/Midrash Aggadah plus others (Midrash Halakhah is commentary on the
Old Testament)
There are 2 Talmuds - the Babylonian (Talmud Bavli) and the Jerusalem (Talmud
Yerushalmi - written in a village near the destroyed Jerusalem)
, ,
,
.
,
,
,
, :
[The dilemmas noted above] form the core of the recent argument about the nature of
halakhah [Jewish law] and its responsiveness to new circumstances. They can be
summarized in a single question. The situation of halakhah has changed. Can halakhah
itself change?
The question touches on fundamentals. At the core of Jewish law are the commands and
prohibitions set forth in the Mosaic books. Having been given by God, they can be
repealed only by God. Having been accepted by the Israelites as the terms of the
covenant, they can be abandoned by Jews only at the cost of forsaking the covenant.
To these propositions must be added two others. The first is that only the revelation
granted to Moses had the force of divine legislative authority. Subsequent prophets were
not authorized to make permanent changes in the law. The second relates to halakhic
interpretation. The concept of an Oral Law, of equal authority with the Written Law,
implies that the Torah cannot be legitimately interpreted without reference to tradition.
These principles are central to Judaism and were the cause of three of the great schisms
in Jewish history. The Sadducees and later the Karaites denied the binding force of the
oral tradition. The early Christians, Paul in particular, denied that the commandments
could not be revoked. He argued that they had been and that a new covenant was now
in force. The rabbis for their part held firmly to their view of the immutability of the law
and traditions revealed at Sinai. The law is eternal because the covenant is eternal. On
that faith, Jewish destiny depends.