Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Pesher Exegesis

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Shepherd
    Hi List, On another discussion list to which I co-moderate, the question was raised about the relationship between pesher exegesis and NT interpretation. It
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi List,



      On another discussion list to which I co-moderate, the question was
      raised about the relationship between pesher exegesis and NT
      interpretation. It is my impression that there is less concern about
      this relationship than there has been in the past. Nevertheless, one
      regularly finds statements calling attention to particular passages in
      the NT as constituting pesher exegesis. A couple of passages for which
      this is regularly done is Peter's use, in Acts 2, of Joel 2:28-32 and Ps
      16:8-11. I can see the case for what Peter does with Joel 2, but I
      don't think the use made of Psalm 16 should be seen as such an instance.
      I readily admit that the presuppositions with regard to eschatological
      interpretation lie behind both the pesharim and Peter's application of
      Psalm 16 to Christ. But I don't see this particular instance as having
      the same form as is found in the pesharim. In particular, I did a quick
      scan of the pesharim to which I have access, and I do not see any of
      them using the kind of logic that Peter uses: the psalm does not apply
      to David; therefore it must apply to Christ. I find this same logic
      used in the church fathers, Justin Martyr for example. But I do not
      think it is to be found in the pesharim. So I am asking whether or not
      anyone on the list recalls any differently.



      Thanks and Blessings,



      Jerry



      Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
      Associate Professor of Old Testament
      Taylor Seminary
      11525 - 23 Avenue
      Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
      CANADA
      Office: (780)431-5250
      Home: (780)434-1164
      Fax: (780)436-9416
      Email: jerry.shepherd@...
      Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca
      <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-e
      du.ca>





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • George F Somsel
      You might add 1 Cor 9.8-12 to that  8  Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, You
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        You might add 1 Cor 9.8-12 to that
         8 
        Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?
         
        or Gal 4.21 ff
         21 
        Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother.

        george

        gfsomsel

         search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
         love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
         defend the truth till death.

        - Jan Hus
        _________



        >________________________________
        > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
        >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
        >Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:21 AM
        >Subject: [biblicalist] Pesher Exegesis
        >
        >

        >
        >Hi List,
        >
        >On another discussion list to which I co-moderate, the question was
        >raised about the relationship between pesher exegesis and NT
        >interpretation. It is my impression that there is less concern about
        >this relationship than there has been in the past. Nevertheless, one
        >regularly finds statements calling attention to particular passages in
        >the NT as constituting pesher exegesis. A couple of passages for which
        >this is regularly done is Peter's use, in Acts 2, of Joel 2:28-32 and Ps
        >16:8-11. I can see the case for what Peter does with Joel 2, but I
        >don't think the use made of Psalm 16 should be seen as such an instance.
        >I readily admit that the presuppositions with regard to eschatological
        >interpretation lie behind both the pesharim and Peter's application of
        >Psalm 16 to Christ. But I don't see this particular instance as having
        >the same form as is found in the pesharim. In particular, I did a quick
        >scan of the pesharim to which I have access, and I do not see any of
        >them using the kind of logic that Peter uses: the psalm does not apply
        >to David; therefore it must apply to Christ. I find this same logic
        >used in the church fathers, Justin Martyr for example. But I do not
        >think it is to be found in the pesharim. So I am asking whether or not
        >anyone on the list recalls any differently.
        >
        >Thanks and Blessings,
        >
        >Jerry
        >
        >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
        >Associate Professor of Old Testament
        >Taylor Seminary
        >11525 - 23 Avenue
        >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
        >CANADA
        >Office: (780)431-5250
        >Home: (780)434-1164
        >Fax: (780)436-9416
        >Email: mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca
        >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca
        ><https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-e
        >du.ca>
        >
        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jerry Shepherd
        Hi George, Thanks for the reply. You are certainly correct about the 1 Cor 9 example, in that it at least appears to follow the same argumentation as that of
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi George,

          Thanks for the reply. You are certainly correct about the 1 Cor 9 example, in that it at least appears to follow the same argumentation as that of Peter in Acts 2 with regard to Psalm 16, though I have heard different ways of looking at what Paul is doing there.. Your example from the Galatians passage, however, is not technically the same line of argument.

          Again, does anyone know of any examples from the pesharim that correspond to Peter's argumentation in Acts 2:25ff.?

          Blessings,

          Jerry

          Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
          Associate Professor of Old Testament
          Taylor Seminary
          11525 - 23 Avenue
          Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
          CANADA
          Office: (780)431-5250
          Home: (780)434-1164
          Fax: (780)436-9416
          Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
          Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

          ________________________________

          From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
          Sent: Thu 10/11/2012 9:25 AM
          To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Pesher Exegesis




          You might add 1 Cor 9.8-12 to that
          8?
          Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9?For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10?Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11?If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12?If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?

          or Gal 4.21 ff
          21?
          Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22?For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23?One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24?Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25?Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26?But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother.

          george

          gfsomsel

          search for truth, hear truth, learn truth,
          love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          defend the truth till death.

          - Jan Hus
          _________
          ...

          >________________________________
          > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
          >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
          >Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:21 AM
          >Subject: [biblicalist] Pesher Exegesis
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Hi List,
          >
          >On another discussion list to which I co-moderate, the question was
          >raised about the relationship between pesher exegesis and NT
          >interpretation. It is my impression that there is less concern about
          >this relationship than there has been in the past. Nevertheless, one
          >regularly finds statements calling attention to particular passages in
          >the NT as constituting pesher exegesis. A couple of passages for which
          >this is regularly done is Peter's use, in Acts 2, of Joel 2:28-32 and Ps
          >16:8-11. I can see the case for what Peter does with Joel 2, but I
          >don't think the use made of Psalm 16 should be seen as such an instance.
          >I readily admit that the presuppositions with regard to eschatological
          >interpretation lie behind both the pesharim and Peter's application of
          >Psalm 16 to Christ. But I don't see this particular instance as having
          >the same form as is found in the pesharim. In particular, I did a quick
          >scan of the pesharim to which I have access, and I do not see any of
          >them using the kind of logic that Peter uses: the psalm does not apply
          >to David; therefore it must apply to Christ. I find this same logic
          >used in the church fathers, Justin Martyr for example. But I do not
          >think it is to be found in the pesharim. So I am asking whether or not
          >anyone on the list recalls any differently.
          >
          >Thanks and Blessings,
          >
          >Jerry
          >
          >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
          >Associate Professor of Old Testament
          >Taylor Seminary
          >11525 - 23 Avenue
          >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
          >CANADA
          >Office: (780)431-5250
          >Home: (780)434-1164
          >Fax: (780)436-9416
          >Email: mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca
          >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/>
          ><https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-e
          >du.ca>
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • richfaussette
          Hello Professor Shepherd, Would you kindly consider this Gospel of Thomas exegesis? It s not exactly what you re looking for, it s a Nag Hamadi text, not the
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 16, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Professor Shepherd,


            Would you kindly consider this Gospel of Thomas "exegesis?" It's not exactly what you're looking for, it's a Nag Hamadi text, not the NT but an interesting comparison nonetheless. I'm hoping you think so.


            The second passage below appears to be the author of the Gospel of Thomas describing the Return from the Fall in Genesis.
            You can easily construct a formula from the pair of statements to demonstrate that the GofT logion is reversing the Fall in Genesis to make it a Return.


            First, here is the passage from Genesis:

            Genesis 3: 6–8

            When Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil the "eyes of both of them were opened and they discovered that they were naked; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made themselves loincloths… and hid from the Lord God."


            + Self (open their eyes) = + shame (cover their nakedness) + fear (hide from God)

            The formula for the Fall as described in this passage is (+ self = + shame + fear).



            Here is the exegesis (in reverse) from the Gospel of Thomas:

            Gospel of Thomas logion 37

            His disciples said, "When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?"

            Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then [will you see] the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid."


            – Self (see the son) = – shame (without being ashamed) – fear (you will not be afraid).

            The formula for the Return as described in this passage is (– self = – shame – fear).

            Any comment would be welcome.

            Regards,
            Rich Faussette
          • Jerry Shepherd
            Hi Rich, Please forgive me for not replying any earlier (pressures of the teaching semester). In any case, I would not actually consider the passage you
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 22, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Rich,

              Please forgive me for not replying any earlier (pressures of the teaching semester). In any case, I would not actually consider the passage you quoted from the Gospel of Thomas as being an instance of exegesis. It does seem to allude to the passage in Gen 3, but it uses the passage rather than actually exegeting the passage to say what it means. Aside from this, I don't understand your plus/minus and self, shame, fear rubrics -- but that's another matter.

              Blessings,

              Jerry

              Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
              Associate Professor of Old Testament
              Taylor Seminary
              11525 - 23 Avenue
              Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
              CANADA
              Office: (780)431-5250
              Home: (780)434-1164
              Fax: (780)436-9416
              Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
              Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

              ________________________________

              From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of richfaussette
              Sent: Tue 10/16/2012 6:35 PM
              To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [biblicalist] Re: Pesher Exegesis






              Hello Professor Shepherd,

              Would you kindly consider this Gospel of Thomas "exegesis?" It's not exactly what you're looking for, it's a Nag Hamadi text, not the NT but an interesting comparison nonetheless. I'm hoping you think so.

              The second passage below appears to be the author of the Gospel of Thomas describing the Return from the Fall in Genesis.
              You can easily construct a formula from the pair of statements to demonstrate that the GofT logion is reversing the Fall in Genesis to make it a Return.

              First, here is the passage from Genesis:

              Genesis 3: 6-8

              When Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil the "eyes of both of them were opened and they discovered that they were naked; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made themselves loincloths... and hid from the Lord God."

              + Self (open their eyes) = + shame (cover their nakedness) + fear (hide from God)

              The formula for the Fall as described in this passage is (+ self = + shame + fear).

              Here is the exegesis (in reverse) from the Gospel of Thomas:

              Gospel of Thomas logion 37

              His disciples said, "When will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you?"

              Jesus said, "When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then [will you see] the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid."

              - Self (see the son) = - shame (without being ashamed) - fear (you will not be afraid).

              The formula for the Return as described in this passage is (- self = - shame - fear).

              Any comment would be welcome.

              Regards,
              Rich Faussette






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • richfaussette
              ... Dear Dr. Shepherd, You are very kind to respond. I am working on an expansion to my explanation (rubric). When it is posted do not feel personally
              Message 6 of 6 , Oct 26, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Shepherd" <Jerry.Shepherd@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Rich,
                >
                > Please forgive me for not replying any earlier (pressures of the teaching semester). In any case, I would not actually consider the passage you quoted from the Gospel of Thomas as being an instance of exegesis. It does seem to allude to the passage in Gen 3, but it uses the passage rather than actually exegeting the passage to say what it means. Aside from this, I don't understand your plus/minus and self, shame, fear rubrics -- but that's another matter.
                >
                > Blessings,
                >
                > Jerry
                >
                > Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd



                Dear Dr. Shepherd,

                You are very kind to respond. I am working on an expansion to my explanation (rubric). When it is posted do not feel personally obigated to respond. I use the list to present my understandings which may or may not resonate with anyone else.

                You wrote: "It does seem to allude to the passage in Gen 3, but it uses the passage rather than actually exegeting the passage to say what it means."

                In Genesis, clothes go on, shame and fear are experienced.
                Note that logion 37 is the opposite of the passage in Genesis.
                Clothes come off. Shame and fear are gone.

                In Genesis, eyes are opened to the knowledge of good and evil. In logion 37, the eyes are opened to Jesus.

                It is not the same passage that is in Genesis.

                Logion 37 does not appear to be the Fall(to me at this juncture anyway).
                It is the Return.

                Thanks again for your kind response.

                Regards,
                Rich Faussette
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.