Gal 3:16 as midrash (was...)
ronning at xsinet.co.za
Sun Mar 11 14:35:35 EST 2001
The fact remains,
1. If Gal 3:16 is midrash, then you should be able to find
at least one practitioner of Midrash in history who would
approve it as legitimate Midrash. To the contrary, Gal 3:16
has been universally scorned in rabbinic interpretation.
2. You should also be able to find a Midrash where the
interpreter makes a point out of a word being singular where
in fact the word is always singular anyway. Your remark
that "seed" is sometimes plural in the NT is disingenious
since it is only plural when it means seeds that are planted
in the ground; never when it means offspring.
> singular or the plural grammatical form in order to refer to the collective.
> (In fact, LXX uses the singular when it *could have* used the plural,
> according to Greek usage.
What is the basis of your statement that the LXX "could
have" used the plural? The Greek is just like the Hebrew
zera` namely a collective. Where does the LXX use "seeds"
when referring to offspring?
> Not in the least! That is part and parcel of the midrashic genre. You can
> have multiple and various interpretations of the same passage and all can be
Then you should be able to cite an example where a
practitioner of Midrash makes a point based on grammar and
then contradicts himself completely a few sentences later.
More information about the b-hebrew