[eeereerews]

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world

On the contrary, the atomization and recombination of the text into new meanings is highly characteristic of Midrash. Of course, this isn't the same as the "prooftext" hermeneutic I think you're criticizing.

[bjourne]

Even Jesus himself often referred to specific verses in the Old Testament: "Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:7; cf. Luke 4:12)" "“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’” (Matthew 5:38)" So the Scripture must have been "Balkanized" before Christianity existed. Which is not so strange given that it served both as religion and as a code of law.

[ars]

> You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’”

That's a great example, because that verse is saying only punish an eye for an eye, and not a life for an eye. It's a verse requiring proportional punishment. (On top of that it means the value of an eye, not an actual eye.)

So quoting it that way actually does remove necessary understanding, which is making the OP's point.

[bjourne]

Not sure I understand what you mean? Jesus was known as a rabbi and well-versed in the Scriptures. I don't think he was misconstruing the text he was citing. Here he is contrasting his view of justice ("turn the other cheek") to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace.

My main point is that Jesus was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.

[ars]

The meaning for the "eye for an eye" verse is well known, it's talking about proportionality in justice.

It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek".

> to the legal norms of the time under which feuds and exacting revenge were commonplace.

But that's exactly what "eye for an eye" attempts to stop. It's instructing people to seek appropriate justice, and not just attack people who hurt them.

Using that verse, rather hurts his message amongst those who understand the verse.

But it's a great way to show verses used out of context!

> was probably not the first one to use this form of argumentation. He likely imitated other rabbis who had taught him to speak in this way.

But they only spoke this way to other Rabbi's, never to people who did not already understand the meaning of the verse.

[bjourne]

> The meaning for the "eye for an eye" verse is well known, it's talking about proportionality in justice.

> It's a pretty strange choice to use when talking about "turn the other cheek".

The phrase "an eye for an eye" puts an upper bound on retributive justice. That is, if you have been fouled, this is the maximum amount of punishment that you are allowed to inflict upon the perpetrator. Don't do as Lamech and kill the one who wounds you because that is not proportional.

Consider the context of Jesus speech. He was speaking to peasants in the Galilee for whom eternal feuds must have been commonplace. They must have been aware of the harmful effects of seeking revenge to everyone involved but unable to put an end to it. That is why one of his examples is a slap. There is and was no legal recourse for slap except for slapping back. Jesus asks his followers to "let it go."

[tsegratis]

Dear lovely @ars, thankyou for your comment. I agree it is strange. Context:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

--

So I think Jesus is agreeing with your comments. Interestingly verse quotations are prefaced with something like "It is written". Yet here 'hate your enemy' is not a biblical verse, and it is prefaced with "You have heard that it was said" -- Jesus was speaking to a crowd here, and contrasting what they had heard, with what his message

One of the implications is he is saying proportionality of justice is a start, but is not nearly enough. For instance, he ends:

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

--

> But they only spoke this way to other Rabbis

He extremely strongly disagreed with the Rabbis. See Matthew 5 for context

[jacksonastone]

I think more so what Jesus is calling Christians to do is to be forgiving of others in the way God is forgiving to man. Which can often be more difficult of a thing to do than to always seek proportional judgement. I do not think in other words his reading of that verse is all that different from yours.

Somewhat related to this conversation but this reading is clear in my view if you continue to read what Jesus says in this passage :)

[goto11]

The example shows that even Jesus quoted single verses out of context. So the assertion that this didn't happen in antiquity is clearly wrong.

[wcarey]

Fascinating! Do you have a good book recommendation that introduces that? It's not something I know much about.

[eeereerews]

Here is a typical example (from Genesis Rabbah)

> And Cain rose up against his brother Abel. [...] With what did he kill him? R. Simeon said: He killed him with a staff: And a young man for my bruising (Gen 4:23) implies a weapon which inflicts a bruise. The Rabbis said: He killed him with a stone: For I have slain a man for wounding me (ibid) indicates a weapon which inflicts wounds. R. 'Azariah and R. Jonathan in R. Isaac's name said: Cain had closely observed where his father slew the bullock [which he sacrificed, as it is written], And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock (Ps 69:31), and there he killed him: by the throat and its organs.

From a Christian perspective, a more interesting example might be the Gospel's atomization/recontextualizations of text as Messianic prophecy ("out of Egypt I have called my son", "behold, a virgin shall be with child").