Gal 3:16 as midrash (was...)

John Ronning ronning at
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.

> I
> 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
> interpretation"?

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 mailing list