pesher Archives - Reading Acts

Jude alludes to a number of stories from the Hebrew Bible. Jude rarely quotes the Hebrew Bible, but he alludes to key events which ought to be familiar to his readers. For example, in v. 5 alludes to the Exodus, v. 6, the Giants in Gen 6, and in v. 7 to Sodom and Gomorrah. He mentions the names of characters to invoke their stories as well. In v. 11 he lists Cain, Balaam and Korah as examples of rebellion against God.

In each of these cases, Jude wants the reader to hear not just the event or name, but to recall the whole story. To what extent does Jude expect the listener to hear the names and events as shorthand for the whole story? The story of the Exodus is common, but Baalam might not be as well known, and Korah is far more obscure. He is expecting a great deal out of his congregation by alluding to these stories.

It is significant that the majority of these examples come from the Wilderness traditions of the Hebrew Bible. The wilderness period was sometimes used in the prophets as an prime example of the rebellious nature of Israel. From the earliest history, Israel struggled to remain faithful to God. Jude makes use of this tradition much like the prophets did, drawing analogies from the first generation to describe his opponents.

While some of these traditions are obscure to us, they were likely well known by Jewish congregations. Paul alludes to the wilderness in 1 Cor 10, Jesus also creates an analogy between his own ministry at the generation in the wilderness (John 6 especially). The fact is that these stories turn up in a number of Jewish sources as examples of rebellion against God. Much of this literature either pre-dates Jude or is contemporary to the letter. “Probably this Jewish schema had been taken up in the paraenesis of the primitive church and used in the initial instruction of converts: hence Jude can refer to it as already well-known to his readers” (Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 46-47).

Jude used texts from the Hebrew Bible to create a typology. He is evoking the memory of a story or event from the history of Israel and drawing out some implication which applies to the situation of the churches he is addressing. Balaam is therefore analogous to the opponents of the church in some ways, but not in every way. Jude’s approach to scripture is not unlike that of the writer of Hebrews. Usually described as a midrash, Jude combines scripture and interprets the scripture as applicable to the present situation of false teachers having “slipped in unaware.”

Perhaps a better way to describe Jude’s technique is to compare the letter with the Habakkuk commentary from Qumran. This style, known as pesher, placed interpretations from the Community’s teacher in between lines of scripture. This sort of running commentary was intended to interpret the text of Habakkuk as applying to the Community’s current situation.

If Jude can be rightly described as a kind of either midrash or pesher, then this can be used as additional evidence of an early, Jewish Christianity as the background to the letter. This observation will be beneficial in understanding the theology of this letter – keeping these images in mind, what is Jude saying about his opponents?

After the national tragedy of 586 B.C. the study of the Law became a critically important practice for the Jews. They went into exile because they did not follow the Law, therefore they devoted themselves to the study and practice of Law. The first two divisions of the Hebrew Bible, Torah, Nebiim (Prophets) were “compelte” by the end of the exile, and the Kethubim (Writings) was likely completed by the beginning of the second century B.C. (depending on the date of Daniel).

All of the books were considered Scripture, but not all equal in authority. The Law was primary, the rest was commentary (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 540). By the first century the Pharisees attempted apply Torah to every aspect of life by developing an oral tradition, a “fence around the law,” a halakah or interpretation of the Law. Some of the oral traditions appear to be designed to circumvent some aspects of the Law, such as the prosbul (a method of making a loan near a Sabbath year which allowed for the loan to be collected rather than forgiven).

E. P. Sanders makes a good case showing this “relaxing of the law” is in the favor of the common people and was not intended as a way to get out of keeping the law. Modern (western) readers tend to think of some rabbinic discussions as overly legalistic, but most of these are interpretations the Law which apply the ancient Law to a new situation.

Because most of the early Christians were Jewish, the church inherited some of the methods of exegesis used by the Jews in the first century. Since Paul was a Pharisee he often engages in interpretation of Scripture using methods similar to the rabbis.

These methods included:

Literal. The straightforward meaning of the text, such as Galatians 3:16 interpreting the word “seed” as a literal child.
A Targum is an “interpretation by paraphrase” or running commentary on Scripture, usually in Aramaic.
A Typological interpretation uses some correspondence between older texts and some present situation. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-11 Paul uses the Exodus and Wilderness experience as an analogy for the experience of the Corinthian church.
Occasionally New Testament writers will interpret the Old Testament as Allegorical. Although this method should not be confused with the later methods used by the medieval church, Jewish writers did tease out spiritual truth and meaning without any connection to the original historical context. The allegorical method is best demonstrated by Philo of Alexandria, but Paul creates an allegory using Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:21-31.
Midrash and Pesher. Paul often connects Scripture to teach something new about Jesus. His synagogue sermon in Acts 13 is a clear example of midrash techniques, as are the two sermons preached by Peter in Acts 2 and 3. A pesher reading discovers meaning by means of a one-to-one correspondence between a word or phrase and some current situation. This method was used at Qumran and in the New Testament by Matthew and the book of Hebrews.

These Jewish views of Scripture and how to interpret Scripture were adopted by the early Church writers. To what extent ought these Jewish views on Scripture guide Christian exegesis today? For example, I think a high view of Scripture is essential for Christian exegesis, but is it necessary to have a “center” of the canon? If a Second Temple Jewish interpreter looked at the rest of Scripture through the lens of the Torah, should a Christian interpreter read the rest of Scripture through the lens of Jesus? Paul? The Sermon on the Mount? The book of Romans?

Although some of the methods of reading Scripture are similar to the modern grammatical historical method, most modern scholars would reject an interpretation which allegorized a text to mean something the original author could not possibly mean. But there are several postmodern approaches to Scripture which do just that. Is it possible reader-response hermeneutics reflect an ancient allegorical method and are somehow legitimate?