the business of interpreting in strikingly similar fashion. It seems as if they
all had, as it were, the same general set of marching orders; or, to put it dif-
ferently, they all shared the same basic assumptions abouthowScripture is
to be interpreted and what its message ought to be. This is most surprising.
It would appear likely that if they all shared the same basic approach — one
which, as we will see, was very much influenced by the ancient Near Eastern
concept of “wisdom” — this was because they were all descended, directly
or otherwise, from a “wisdom”-influenced way of thinking about Scripture
that existed even before these various groups of interpreters developed.
However these groups of ancient interpreters came to exist, modern
scholars can, in examining their writings, deduce the basic assumptions
underlying their way of explaining biblical texts. These assumptions may
be broken down into four fundamental postulates:- All ancient interpreters assumed that scriptural texts were basically
cryptic;that is, while the text may say A, often what it really means is B. - They also assumed that, although most of Scripture had been written
hundreds of years earlier and seemed to be addressed to people back
then, its words nevertheless were altogetherrelevantto people in the
interpreters’ own day — its stories contained timeless messages about
proper conduct; its prophecies really referred to events happening
now, or in the near future; its ancient laws were to be scrupulously ob-
served today, even if they seemed to refer to situations or practices that
no longer existed; and so forth. In a word, the basic purpose of Scrip-
ture was toguidepeople nowadays; although it talked about the past, it
was really aimed at the present. - On the face of it, Scripture included texts written by different prophets
and sages, people who lived hundreds of years apart from one another
and who came from different strata of society. Nevertheless, these di-
verse writings were assumed to containa single, unitary message.That
is to say, Scripture’s different parts could never contradict one another
or disagree on any matter of fact or doctrine; indeed, what Scripture
taught would always be perfectly consistent with the interpreters’ own
beliefs and practices, whatever they might be (Greek philosophical
doctrines; common historical or geographical lore; the halakic teach-
ings of later postbiblical teachers). In short, Scripture was altogether
harmoniousin all its details and altogether true; carried to its extreme,
this approach postulated that there was not a single redundancy, un-
necessary detail, or scribal error in the text: everything was perfect.
165Early Jewish Biblical InterpretationEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:00 PM