Don't Forget to Look Underneath!

By: Jonathan Seidel

Biblical criticism's French peshat approach  

The Bible is replete with contradictions forcing compromises of all sorts to synthesise the text. The homiletic interpretations of the Andalusian school moved past the simple reading of the text for a rabbinic derivation that seemingly deviated from the translation. The French rabbis returned to a plain reading but did not go as far as the moderns in their literal basis. Metaphorical observations and compromising deductions were sampled as a solution to the textual framework. The goal of the Talmudic dialectics and thus of biblical commentary was to understand the truth of Torah. Yet their methods remained confined to religious borders. Rashbam was willing to interpret beyond the law but was careful of the line. This is not the case for the critical scholar.

The critical scholar is not bound by any traditional dogmas. Chronology and historicity play an explicit role in grounding the biblical reader. Linguistics and grammatical measures were facilitated methodically. Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel did provide novel ideas whether certain words were post-mosaic or Deuteronomy was specifically mosaic were particularly foreign but inclusive ideas. How far does it go. Philology becomes ever dangerous with linguistic affiliations. The diachronic approach familiarises the reader with other ancient rituals. This provides the justification needed to present alternative documents written at different times. The inescapable dichotomy presented to the critical scholar compels him to deny any historical matter to it. It is a heritage book with no evidence of its credibility. Archeology is somewhat of a mishap helping in some areas and hurting in others. 

The critical scholar invested in the peshat opposes the rabbinic derash as a later creation. When the text says. "don’t boil a goat in its mother’s milk" to mean no cooking, eating or benefiting, the critical scholar is dumbfounded by the stark contradiction presented in the text. No law can be derived due to the missing details. Its lack of internal coherence mislabels this law and formulates a radical deviation from the text. This line is so convoluted that it seems more probable as an ancient phrase. The way it is inserted in the text is semantically problematic. The verse states, "bring the first fruits to God, don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk". The linguistic mode withholds any continuity. Given the rabbinic legislation, there is a semiotic link that properly fits the verse. One suggestion I came across fills in the semantic gap. The first fruits are a contrast to the milk and dairy. Similar to talion law, the phrase is intentional to demonstrate the gory nature of the act. Bring the first fruits as a sign of deep appreciation to God and then do not commit the ultimate action of ungratefulness by cooking a baby goat in its generous mother’s milk. The value theme juxtaposes the phrase. The sensus comminus knew the importance of this phrase as a metaphor for a law that jives nicely thematically with bikurim. Then similar to other laws like carrying on Shabbat, the Deuteronomic text lexicographically adds the prohibition of eating nor benefiting in line with not eating a dead animal. Thematically this also fits given the dedication to God. The impurity of the animal renders it impure to the divinely anointed people thus do not commit an impurity of boiling a kid in its mothers milk. The phrase again is associated with its metaphorical meaning. We may even sight the Bechor Shor who quotes the law of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day as a synchronic parallel. Rabbinic collections are not necessarily invented laws. They are derived from a history of Jewish practice. Its lack of mention or clarity in the text does not omit its implementation. The law was first oral and then anthologised in a written framework. The Bible is not a law code but a guidebook. Its literary problems are ancient knowledge to evoke an aid.   

In the case above the realisation is that rabbinic derash was the peshat of the text. Derash was isolated to the homiletic areas not the legal quandaries. Rabbinic exegesis is aligning the age old law with the text. A citation policy unknown to the ancients. Their prophetic lexicographical model or coined inner-biblical exegesis firmly places the law as biblical. The rabbis weren’t trying to justify their claims to outsiders but to demonstrate the creative thinking to stenograph an oral reality. The shift from orality to textuality was formally a compilation then an anthology and finally a codex. The lack of exegetical behaviour in the Mishnah furthers the lexicographical identity of prophetic exegesis and legal evolution. Not every detail originated at Sinai. Yet, the concept at large is mentioned somewhere in the text. It’s not just some fundamentalist validation but a clear exposition of legal formulation.     

Unlike the later Tosafists, this exercise was not to justify their craft but demonstrate the link to the past. The continuous customs passed down for generations was inherently in the text. The pilpul methodology seems a little more analytically apologetic than rabbinic exegesis. There is no inner-exegesis for the Tosafists. Though it is entirely possible that their customs were ancient authentic presentations behind the talmudic text but the level of detail and structure in the talmud presents a more uniform possibility. There is room for evolution especially in a perpetuated written shift. French rabbis did not begin to textualise until the twelfth century. Customs were continued from the Talmud and then verified thereafter. Their synchronic-semiological outlook to the totality of shas demonstrating why their approach was genuine. At times it does seem post-facto. The ambiguity of the Bible, its lack of legal coherence and ancient oral structures seems more as pre-facto but this mere speculation on both sides. 

Andalusian difference to the French rabbis is due to their oral persistence. It was the fault of Maimonideans and more anti-Maimonideans that relinquished the oral potential of the Mishneh Torah. Structured like the Mishnah with hope of Talmudic extensions never rose to prominence given the backlash. It hardened as a code to read literally, despite his ambiguity and contradictions to be resolved semiotically (an exercise undertaken by the briskers). The semantic lingo is prime for a base layer of understanding. For the community to read and refer to their practice. It is itself a symbol. Andalusian scholars continued the oral trajectory of The Talmudic Sages into the medical age. Textualisation overpowered but looking beneath will demonstrate the necessary character that written words cannot articulate. 

Maimonides correctly noted the synchronic harmony in the Talmudic texts. The bible is a complimentary narrative not a supersessionist one. Inner-biblical exegesis is one such method that proves the continuity of the biblical narrative. There is a process of themes and laws developed through the books. God’s presence slowly diminishes overtime. He is the sole character to the protagonist to the deuteragonist to a supporting character to mere mentioning. This thematically implies the road of maturity. The need of God or open miracles is less as the nation grows up. God transforms from a parent to a king. He understands it’s time to let go. Another example is the early visual revelation in Exodus to the later auditory revelation in Deuteronomy as a development from visual to auditory divinity. Biblical themes are representations of the sensus comminus. The bible is methodical, written to perfection. Carbon-dating the Torah given its lingual choice undermines the mental law pervasive in ancient Israel. “Textual corruption” is a misnomer. It is reading the Torah with Greek eyes. The common legal model facilitated a modern derash perspective. Stop reading the written word in statutory terms. It is not anachronistic, it is complimentary and revolutionary. 

Critical scholars ought to dispense with contemporary literal reading with ancient understanding. Reproaching the text inaccurately only fuels misrepresentation and animosity. Read the bible with hebraic eyes. Read it more auditorial than visual. See beneath the text to discover the oral identity of ancient Israel.