Rosie Perera said:

deriving some theological significance from the fact that there happens to be a word in the Hebrew language that is spelled with the first and last letters of its alphabet is kind of like saying that the state of Arizona encompasses all of reality because its abbreviation is AZ.

Actually that kind of "word-play" was very common in Rabbinic interpretation - probably very familiar to Paul. One first has to understand that Hebrew can be interpreted very differently than other languages because Hebrew is the language of God. Everything came into being through Hebrew. In addition, rabbinic interpretation also attributes a superabundance of meaning to the text - the "plain meaning" of the text is in Jewish interpretation a post-diaspora technique.

Now I wish there were a rabbi or two active on the forums to correct my simplified, Christian description.

Ben said:

Halivni's Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis covers this

Thanks for this reference - it looks very useful. I have read (and found useful) the other two books you mention.

Ben said:

At issue, though, is what the interpreter thinks they're doing. Most people today when they interpret the Bible are intending to give the Peshat, the "plain meaning" or historical-contextual meaning. I have a much smaller  problem with saying things like the OP provided that people understand it's a creative, non-contextual interpretation. 

Basically, I agree with you. However, I have a problem with New Testament interpretation that doesn't accommodate both the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds in which the texts were written. Hence, I see the dismissing of a technique probably well known to Paul as a teachable moment. I wish Logos had more historical studies of exegetical practices - as the very least Jewish, Orthodox and Catholic early practices.

merged into post below

Ben said:

That's a theological interpretation, not a linguistic one. It seems
fairly ignorant of the actual linguistic reason.

The real reason aleph-tav isn't translated is because it marks
definite direct objects in Hebrew, and English has no formal equivalent.

Given the turn that my post made this thread go, I want to state that
I agree with you.

Rosie Perera said:

Really? That's the first time I've heard that. How do we know what language -- if indeed it was a human language -- God spoke when he brought everything into being?

Yes, really. While I certainly can get things wrong, I wouldn't make this kind of assertion regarding rabbinic interpretation lightly.

From Shai Cherry, a historian of interpretation of the Torah who taught at Vanderbilt: (Note this is not the only source in which I have read this - it is merely a source close at hand because a friend and I are reading and discussing the book)

"The process of interpreting the Torah is influenced by how one understands the nature of Hebrew. Among the legacies of the scribes is that the Rabbis of the post-second Temple era (1st-7th c. CE) held that Hebrew, unlike other languages, captured the essence of the thing described. In other words, Hebrew is not a language of conventions whereby we agree that the word book will indicate this thing you happen to be reading right now. For the Rabbis, "God spoke and the world came into being." Because the world was created by the Divine language of Hebrew, language participates in the very essence of reality. The biblical word davar means both word and thing; this means that the word and the thing share an essence according to such an understanding of Hebrew. Many scholars of Rabbinic literature have observed that the Rabbis were inveterate punsters in large part because of the aural nature of their teachings. Although true, such a description belittles the seriousness with which the Rabbis felt Hebrew informed us about the nature of reality. For them, if two words sound alike or share certain root letters, it may well be because there is an underlying commonality that links the essences of those things."

Although I am missing one title, this is a list of non-technical, enjoyable books that have shaped my understanding of Jewish interpretation:

• God Was in This Place and I, I Did Not Know by Lawrence Kushner 
• The Ten Journeys of Life: Walking the Path of Abraham by Michael Gold
• How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel
• The Bible As It Was by James Kugel
• Torah Through Time: Understanding Bible Commentary, from The Rabbinic Period to Modern Times by Shai Cherry (see http://www.logos.com/products/details/5316

The book I can't find the title of is on a group of people meeting regularly in NYC to discuss the book of Genesis; the author's name begins with a V. Someone know what I'm thinking of?

Logos does have a couple of books on the history of Biblical interpretation, but I would love to see more. I personally like to see whose shoulders I'm standing on. I'm not impressed with interpretative methods that fail to acknowledge their assumptions and history although I am as fascinated by post-modern as by ancient interpretative techniques.

Alex Scott said:

Have we as a culture totally lost the
ability and courage to label nonsense, nonsense, lest we upset someone's
sensibilities?  Most of us on the forums seem to be involved in
ministry at one level or another.  Is there a single reputable scholar
out there that has taken this position?  If it's fruitcake, label it
fruitcake.  If those in leadership would deal with these issues as they
come up instead of pussyfooting around them, we'd have a lot less
silliness going on in the Christian community.

I would put this another way (language chosen to match Alex's). Have we as a culture become so smug
that we are unable to empathize with previous (or future) patterns of
thought? Must we label the thought of those whose shoulders we stand on
as fools and fruitcakes because they don't think like us? Will we become
the supercilious fruitcakes of tomorrow? (I suspect we will.)

Yes, I do not agree with the assumption/assertion that God speaks
Hebrew; nor do I agree with the logical consequences of that assumption.
However, I do believe that it is important to understand the rules of
Biblical interpretation which Paul as an educated Pharisee would have
been taught. It also should inform our study of the use of the Old
Testament in the New.

The issue, in this case, is not upsetting someone's sensibilities. It
is a matter of not treating the New Testament as a document from the
West after the "Age of Reason". The reason for my original post was
simply to take advantage of a teachable moment to point out a that a
technique that is odd to us was not odd at a critical point in the
salvation history.

Anyway, I believe I am guilty of bending this thread into a theological discussion which was not my intention. I formally apologize for the breach of guidelines.

An aside: Cherry's book uses a template that I find very useful (of course the fact that it bolsters my opinion that Logos ought to support templates has no influence [:)]). It contains the following columns for summarizing interpretations:

1. Interpretative problem
2. Resolution
3. Textual mechanism (technique)
4. Historical circumstances

Rosie Perera said:

claimed to have found evidence that Hebrew was the mother of all languages.

when language clearly all derives from Sanskrit "Aum" (or "Om") [:P]

MJ. Smith said:

I would put this another way (language chosen to match Alex's). Have we as a culture become so smug
that we are unable to empathize with previous (or future) patterns of
thought? Must we label the thought of those whose shoulders we stand on
as fools and fruitcakes because they don't think like us? Will we become
the supercilious fruitcakes of tomorrow? (I suspect we will.)

[Y] Well said, good on you MJ. To be frank Alex comments were really not called for I.e
"silliness", "fruitcake" "nonsense" "pussyfooting" . Name calling & being dismissive does not equal argumentation and demonstration backed by evidence.

That said, I share the same concerns Rosie has expressed on this thread. Then again I am no expert, neither have I studied the issue in great detail.

MJ. Smith said:

God Was in This Place and I, I Did Not Know by Lawrence Kushner 
The Ten Journeys of Life: Walking the Path of Abraham by Michael Gold
How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now by James L. Kugel
The Bible As It Was by James Kugel
Torah Through Time: Understanding Bible Commentary, from The Rabbinic Period to Modern Times by Shai Cherry (see http://www.logos.com/products/details/5316

Thanks for providing some resources that share your interpretive stance.

Ted

Ted Hans said:

That said, I share the same concerns Rosie has expressed on this thread.

Quite appropriately. I am not saying that we should share the interpretation. I am saying that we should respect it at a minimum as a historically valid technique. I find a good dose of the history of Biblical interpretation is a great vaccination against hubris.

Ted Hans said:

Thanks for providing some resources that share your interpretive stance.

You're welcome. And I do hope that some people will actually read one or two of them. They can become additive.[;)]

I finally remembered the title of the other book I wished to recommend:

• Reading
  the Book by Burton
  L. Visotzky

Rosie Perera said:

I had thought you were making a rather surprising declarative statement as if you believed it and thought it was an absolute

You should have known I give that place to Sanskrit [:P] Not really either. But yes, I made the Hebrew statement in the context of rabbinic commentary. I made the Sanskrit statement in the context of Sanskrit grammarians (?) [I honestly don't remember which group attributes existence to the cosmic OM.[:$]]

Mike Aubrey said:

Here's the academic editor at logos blog post on this one:

And I need a link to a factually accurate, verbally abusive post why? Yes, I recognized and laughed at much of the humor but ...

David Paul said:

But I suspect he also thinks Isa. 28 is really about baby talk.

You know, I need to spend less time on the forums - or more. I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.