Gal 3:16 as midrash (was...)
ronning at xsinet.co.za
Wed Mar 14 17:03:21 EST 2001
Thanks for providing an example for discussion. If that's
the best you can offer, you've proved my point that Gal 3:16
is not midrash. Listing a bunch of different possible
interpretations is quite different from asserting that two
mutually inconsistent interpretations are both true, which
is what you have if the usual interpretation of Gal 3:16 is
> Why does one have to find " at least one practitioner of Midrash in history
> who would approve it as legitimate Midrash"?
You don't have to if you don't want to support your theory
with evidence. If you could find a practitioner of midrash
who looked approvingly on Gal 3:16 (acc. to the usual
interpretation) that would be supporting evidence. Looks
suspicious to me when you say that a certain interpretation
is the product of a certain school of thought or method but
everyone else who uses that method thinks that
interpretation is ridiculous.
> do not know of any rabbinic text which even alludes to Gal. 3.16 so how can
> you possible say that it has been "universally scorned in rabbinic
The universally negative rabbinic opinion of Gal 3:16 is
reported by Christian commentators and polemicists, not in
the writings of the rabbis themselves.
I've offered an interpretation of Gal 3:16 that shows Paul
to be consistent with what he says everywhere else - no need
for the "midrash" copout. I'll leave it at that.
More information about the b-hebrew