[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Paul's and Midrash
>From David John Marotta:
My criticism of Midrash techniques is not *all* Midrash
techniques, but rather simply those which play word games,
denying that authorial intent determines the meaning of a text,
and therefore failing to deal with the author within his own
social, literary, etc. etc. context.
David, while I am not entirely unsympathetic to your attention to
"authorial intent," I find your description of part of ancient
exegesis as "word games, denying that authorial intent determines the
meaning of a text," to be an inappropriate mix of ancient and modern
categories. This at least *appears* to trivialize the ancient
enterprise so as to rescue Paul from its clutches. You say to Stan
Anderson:
Paul, and other authors of the New Testament, differ from the
Midrash in seeking the orginal author's intent. Midrash authors
seem more willing to play word games than Paul, hence my focusing
on Gal 3:16 which is pointed to as a prime example of Paul
playing Midrashic word games, and suggesting an alternate
reading.
Defining "Midrash" is difficult enough, but I think we should be
careful not to present caricatures of ancient interpretive practice
based on 20th century biases or conclusions about what is "proper"
method. Would the rabbis have seen themselves as "playing word games,
denying that authorial intent determines the meaning of a text?" One
thing is certain, they were as serious, energetic, and careful as
anyone today in finding the meaning of their text.
Gary D. Collier
University of Denver/Iliff School of Theology
gcollier@diana.cair.du.edu