Well, Bible Study Magazine Spun Out on the 56th Lap

DMB

I made up the 56th lap ... it's been going around the track for quite a while.

But now they have politicized adverts. Combined with their more frequent Lexham book expansions.

1. It's their mag, not an issue concerning their perogatives. Do as they wish.

2. I don't even pay for BSM ... someone has been nice for quite some time.

3. But as a courtesy, our mail policy is politics mailings/adverts go in the garage trash for later disposal. The good stuff comes upstairs.

4. Regarding the advert, note that I didn't pick a side. Again, their mag. And our garage.

Now, regarding the article (before the spin-out):

"Among the Jewish rabbis, “binding” and “loosing” were idiomatic terms to denote certain types of conduct that were either prohibited (“bound”) or permitted (“loosed”), forbidden or authorized." (also dup'd in the blog)

Try to validate that statement ... using your trusty Logos.

David Paul

DMB said:

Now, regarding the article (before the spin-out):

"Among the Jewish rabbis, “binding” and “loosing” were idiomatic terms to denote certain types of conduct that were either prohibited (“bound”) or permitted (“loosed”), forbidden or authorized." (also dup'd in the blog)

Try to validate that statement ... using your trusty Logos.

Not sure about what "the" rabbis said about this, but it is at least interesting that the Bible uses the terms "bind" and "loose" with senses that are completely contrary to what humans generally and "the" rabbis particularly (assuming the article is correct) would be inclined to value and prefer. Humanly speaking, who doesn't prefer being "loosed" over being "bound"? One evokes notions of freedom, autonomy, and volition, while the other smacks of limitation, constraint, and suppression. Not surprisingly, not in the least, YHWH sees things differently.

Regarding "bind":
Isa. 8:16 NASB

Regarding "loose":
Exo. 32:25 NASB ...where the phrases "were out of control" and "get out of control" literally mean "were let loose" and "go loose" respectively.

Clearly, these examples show that "bind" doesn't mean "prohibit" or "forbid", nor does "loose" mean "permit" (in the sense of "advocate") or "authorize"; in fact, it is nearly the opposite. Now, I'm not denying that these terms can be polysemous, particularly since prophectic language, which proliferates and exudes through Scripture, thrives on polysemy and polyvalence. In other words, I'm not rejecting the view promoted by the rabbis (and probably most Christians) out of hand. But there is certainly a possibility, perhaps even a likelihood, that the usages quoted above from the Bible are what was Authorially intended. My first inclination is to always prefer YHWH's instruction over rabbinic interpretation.

Gregory Lawhorn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172491#Comment_1172491

David Paul said:

Now, I'm not denying that these terms can be polysemous, particularly since prophectic language, which proliferates and exudes through Scripture, thrives on polysemy and polyvalence.

For those who might need to look up sesquipedalian words:

Polysemous:  That has a multiplicity of meanings, or bears many different interpretations; spec. designating a word that exhibits polysemy. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Polyvalent: Having multiple aspects or meanings; open to a number of different interpretations. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Sesquipedalian: Of words and expressions (after Horace's sesquipedalia verba ‘words a foot and a half long’, A.P. 97) (Oxford English Dictionary)

Gregory Lawhorn

DMB said:

"Among the Jewish rabbis, “binding” and “loosing” were idiomatic terms to denote certain types of conduct that were either prohibited (“bound”) or permitted (“loosed”), forbidden or authorized."

Try to validate that statement ... using your trusty Logos.

I may have found what Murray was referring to, in the Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, by John Lightfoot. 

"But now to bind and loose, a very usual phrase in the Jewish schools, was spoken of things, not of persons" (Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark (Vol. 2, p. 236). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.) (emphasis mine)

And,

"To these may be added, if need were, the frequent (shall I say?) or infinite use of the phrases, אסור ומותר bound and loosed, which we meet with thousands of times over. But from these allegations, the reader sees abundantly enough both the frequency and the common use of this phrase, and the sense of it also; namely, first, that it is used in doctrine, and in judgments, concerning things allowed or not allowed in the law. Secondly, That to bind is the same with to forbid, or to declare forbidden." (Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians, Matthew-Mark (Vol. 2, p. 240). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.) (emphasis mine)

It certainly would have been helpful for Murray to footnote his statement. 

In any case I believe I have validated Murray's statement, at least as far as finding a source for it. If you will follow the first link above, you will see that Lightfoot provides quite a number of references from Hebrew sources. 

DMB

Appreciate your comments! I guess my 'teeth grinding' is the sloppiness of modern Biblical writers (and magazine quoters), that we assign to over-zealous pastors with their amateur greek, root-expansioning, and Barr-violations. Unprofessional ... compared to earlier generations.

First, his rabbis come largely from the the Mishnah, whose dating has to always be qualified. Lightfoot, as above, identifies his sources.

Second, the usage bounced around, as also above. Some OT. Some 2nd Temple. Some Josephus and even Philo. Later, the Mishnah/Talmud. Which one would you like?

Third, if one assigned a meaning specifically to some rabbis, why Jesus? Was he also a Pharasee? Or they all talked that way?

Ok. But I'd say both replies above are quite professional. As earlier generations.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172500#Comment_1172500

Interesting discussion.

David Wanat

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172500#Comment_1172500

DMB said:

Third, if one assigned a meaning specifically to some rabbis, why Jesus? Was he also a Pharasee? Or they all talked that way?

Or, Jesus could be using terms in the sense the Jews would understand?

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172500#Comment_1172500

DMB said:

if one assigned a meaning specifically to some rabbis, why Jesus? Was he also a Pharasee?

Jesus was not a Pharisee, but this search will reveal the times he IS called Rabbi - <Root = lbs/el/ραββι>INTERSECTS <person Jesus> 

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172524#Comment_1172524

Staying strictly within guidelines, David W's option (certainly possible) hints at the assumption the sources for the Talmud (traditionally defined), and the collectors (often assigned to the Pharisees), were representative of 'the jews'. At least per Josephus, the 'philosophies' were in the tiny minority (Pharisees, Saducees, etc). One can only guess what Jesus' audience initially believed.

And David T's comment ignores Jesus' recommending the Pharisees, as well as an implied assumption rabbis thought and talked alike (Jesus did spend extra time on Pharisee 'binding' and the benefits of 'loosing' of Pharisee rules).

All not to get theological (haven't suggested 'correct'), but to illustrate the loosey-goosey host of assumptions that underlie much recent scholar'ing.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172497#Comment_1172497

Gregory Lawhorn said:

In any case I believe I have validated Murray's statement, at least as far as finding a source for it. If you will follow the first link above, you will see that Lightfoot provides quite a number of references from Hebrew sources. 

Also, helpful is Louw-Nida: Bind

37.46 δέω^e: to exercise authority over something on the basis that it is not legitimate—‘to prohibit, to not allow, to not permit.’ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ‘what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven’ Mt 16:19. There are a number of different interpretations of the implication of this statement in Mt 16:19, and translators should carefully review this passage in various commentaries.

 Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 476). New York: United Bible Societies.

And, Loose

37.47 λύω^f: to exercise authority over something on the basis of its being legitimate—‘to permit, to allow.’ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ‘whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven’ Mt 16:19. There are a number of different interpretations of the implication of this statement in Mt 16:19, and translators should carefully review this passage in various commentaries.

 Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 476). New York: United Bible Societies.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172530#Comment_1172530

Beloved Amodeo said:

Also, helpful is Louw-Nida

Hopefully, this little exegetical rabbit-trail doesn't offend each poster ... it's not intended to.

Beloved's post illustrates the next assumption ... from whense the definitions (as with most lexicons)? Since few of us were alive back then, of course the definitions are derived from selected written usage examples. L&N are unusual, in providing warnings in each case. And for good reason ... who wants to argue Jesus taught his disciples in greek? Almost unavoidably one arrives in circular-logic ... the greek passage defines a common greek word ... the assigned word meaning supplies the passage. And so L&N (smartly) jump ship.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172530#Comment_1172530

BDAG is even more illustrative under its heading for 

δέω:

④ The combination δ. καὶ λύειν bind and loose (Ael. Aristid. 40, 7 K.=5 p. 55 D. of Prometheus: ὅσα δήσειεν ὁ Ζεύς, ταῦτʼ ἐξὸν Ἡρακλεῖ λῦσαι; 41, 7 K.; Teleclides Com. [V b.c.] Fgm. 42 K. δέω—ἀναλύω) is found Mt 16:19; 18:18. 

• On the meaning δέω has here cp. J 20:22f (cp. 1QH 13:10). 

• Another interpretation starts fr. the rabbinic viewpoint. 

• Aram. אֲסַר and שְׁרָא are academic language for the decision of the rabbis as to what was to be regarded as ‘bound’ (אֲסִיר), i.e. forbidden, or ‘loosed’ (שְׁרֵי), i.e. permitted; 

 Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 222). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172535#Comment_1172535

This thread is spawning thought trails like fungal webs. Where to begin? Where to begin?

Regarding polysemy and polyvalence, this article handles the contrast pretty well. Also, the term "polyvalence" has a synonym in "multivalence". I have a few books that address these concepts within the realm of Biblical studies, such as The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings (NOT available in Logos). It is edited by Christine Helmer, who has a few books on offer in Logos PrePub, though not this one, unfortunately.

DMB said:

Almost unavoidably one arrives in circular-logic

This observation could lead to unending conversation, but, alas, it would veer from forum intention.

EDIT: Apparently the insertion of hyperlinks does not work on the Mobile app. I will have to get on my computer to add the links.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172575#Comment_1172575

David Paul said:

EDIT: Apparently the insertion of hyperlinks does not work on the Mobile app. I will have to get on my computer to add the links.

Done.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172579#Comment_1172579

OUP's abstract was interesting, on your well recommended book (agreed; should be in Logos):

"While many of the essayists in Helmer's symposium are aware of the problems and seek to address them, more often than not the connection is through a tacit confessional position."

https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/59/1/199/1638855 

$4 seems do-able for a Brill!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172524#Comment_1172524

David Thomas said:

Jesus was not a Pharisee, but this search will reveal the times he IS called Rabbi

I have encountered folks who insist that Yeishuua` was indeed a Pharisee, and not just a generic one, but one beholden to a particular school of thought. There were two main groups, known as House of Shemmai and House of Hillel. Because I find this concept ontologically bizarre and ipso facto dismissible on its face, I forget which one Yeishuua` is supposed to emulate (though I wouldn't be surprised if different parties held different opinions on this point, a fact of no little irony). The Wikipedia article on this topic is interesting, particularly the Discussion section, which touches on the topic at hand.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172584#Comment_1172584

David Paul said:

I have encountered folks who insist that Yeishuua` was indeed a Pharisee, and not just a generic one, but one beholden to a particular school of thought.

Keeping in mind, I'm not advocating a position. But being a 'pharisee' in modern parlence would be a card-carrying supporter (who knows, maybe a pharisee convention). If you subtract the card-in-the-wallet membershipping, you're left with a rabbi instructing his disciples about the correctness of the pharisees. I think you're left with OUP quote above.