Friday, July 31, 2020

Defining Torah

My contention is that "Torah" can be translated as "law," teaching or instruction. Either translation is acceptable.

One translation of Maimonides states: "The Torah" refers to the Written Law; "the mitzvah," to its explanation. [God] commanded us to fulfill "the Torah" according to [the instructions of] "the mitzvah."5 "The mitzvah" is called the Oral Law.

See http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/901656/jewish/Introduction-to-Mishneh-Torah.htm

In an article for Jewish Bible Quarterly, Jacob Chinitz provides this information:

This article will attempt to answer two questions: What is the meaning, or what are the meanings, of the word "Torah" when it occurs in the Torah? Is the Torah aware of itself as a book? There are 32 appearances of the word torah, or ha-torah, in the Pentateuch. In 11 of these, it is a common noun meaning "law" or "rule" in general, without specific reference to the Torah. In the other 21 appearances, the word refers to the Torah; once in Exodus and 20 times in Deuteronomy. In the first meaning, the word is used twice for law in general and nine times for a rule for a particular situation. In the second meaning, the word is used 10 times for the contents of the Torah, and 11 times for the material scroll of the Sefer Torah.

See "The Word 'Torah' in the Torah" by Chinitz.

Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906: The Torah receives its title from its contents, the name itself connoting "doctrine." The Hellenistic Jews, however, translated it by νόμος = "law" (e.g., LXX., prologue to Ecclus. [Sirach], Philo, Josephus, and the New Testament), whence came the term "law-book"; this gave rise to the erroneous impression that the Jewish religion is purely nomistic, so that it is still frequently designated as the religion of law. In reality, however, the Torah contains teachings as well as laws, even the latter being given in ethical form and contained in historical narratives of an ethical character.

Jewish Virtual Library.org: The Torah, or Jewish Written Law, consists of the five books of the Hebrew Bible - known more commonly to non-Jews as the "Old Testament" - that were given by G-d to Moses on Mount Sinai and include within them all of the biblical laws of Judaism. The Torah is also known as the Chumash, Pentateuch or Five Books of Moses.

The word "Torah" has multiple meanings including: A scroll made from kosher animal parchment, with the entire text of the Five Books of Moses written on it; the text of the Five Books of Moses, written in any format; and, the term "Torah" can mean the entire corpus of Jewish law. This includes the Written and the Oral Law.

From Oxford Bibliographies:

Law” or “Torah” (Hebrew) normally refers to instruction given by God to Moses at Sinai and preserved in the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy), but can occasionally be used more broadly, even to refer to the Psalms, as in John 10:34. This article focuses on the former meaning and thus on works that deal with how New Testament writers (and also the historical Jesus) view the Law. Research on the latter has been greatly influenced by the way scholars have understood how Judaism at the time of Jesus and the early Christian movement viewed the Law. Stereotypical conflicts between Protestants and Catholics contributed to stereotypical views of Judaism and Law in much of the literature up to the mid-20th century, so that, at worst, Judaism was depicted as a religion where one earned status before God by meticulous observance of the Law, seen as burdensome, and had no real hope of forgiveness.

See https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0037.xml

NABRE Footnote for Exodus 12:49: One law: the first appearance of the word torah, traditionally translated as “law,” though it can have the broader meaning of “teaching” or “instruction.” Elsewhere, too, it is said that the “alien” is to be accorded the same treatment as the Israelite (e.g., Lv 19:34).

Catholic Encyclopedia: Torah, [Image] (cf. Hiph. of [Image]), signifies first "direction, instruction", as, for instance, the instruction of parents (Proverbs 1:8), or of the wise (Proverbs 3:1). It is used chiefly in reference to the Divine instruction, especially through the revelation to Moses, the "Law", and to the teaching of the Prophets concerning the will of God. In the sense of law "Torah" refers only to the Divine laws. "Torah" is applied to the books containing the teaching of the Mosaic revelation and the Law, that is, the Pentateuch.

Brian Neil Peterson, Genesis as Torah, 21-22 of the electronic edition:

What is torah? Broadly defined torah means law or instruction (Gen 26:5;  Exod 12:49; 13:9; 18:16 etc.). When assessing the Pentateuch, torah can be  more narrowly defined as instruction in the ways and commands of YHWH  (Exod 16:4; cf. 24:12).² Frank Crüsemann adds that “it comprises legal, moral,  cultic, religious, theological and historical statements.”³ When most scholars speak of torah, it is quite clear that Genesis does not immediately come to mind.⁴ Instead they generally turn their focus to the obvious portions of the Pentateuch⁵ that engender the concept of law, namely, the Book of the  Covenant (Exod 20:22—23:33); the Holiness Code of Leviticus 17–26; the Deuteronomic Law (Deut 12–26); or the Decalogue of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.⁶ A fine example of this is the approach used by Albrecht Alt  (1883–1956), who when discussing the origins of the law in Israel only mentions Genesis in one passing footnote.

It is obvious that scholars struggle with using the term torah in its strictest  sense when classifying the book of Genesis. Characteristic of this line of  thought is Terence Fretheim’s definition of torah. He states, “The Hebrew  word torah can be more properly used if it is broadly defined as instruction, and hence could include both law and narrative. But, given the usual meanings of the word ‘law,’ it should not be used as a shorthand reference to the  Pentateuch in its entirety” (italics original).⁸ While I can appreciate what  Fretheim is trying to say, I disagree with his conclusion that the word “law”  should not encapsulate the whole of the Pentateuch. Not only are such definitions too narrow, they also fail to give proper weight to the torah instruction found in narratives throughout Genesis in particular. Moreover, these narrow definitions go against Jewish tradition, which identifies Genesis not only as  part of the Torah, but as its very introduction!  At the same time, care must be taken not to diminish the juridical force of  the law in favor of its value as “religious instruction.”⁹ While using the term “instruction” in a general sense may help alleviate the tension, Genesis can also rightly be termed “law” or “case law” in a variety of situations where God in fact brought forth judgment (see next section below).¹⁰ Therefore, focusing  mainly on the overt legal portions of the Torah as the primary legal  instruction¹¹ within the Pentateuch is in fact to miss the importance of the implicit legal instruction present within the narratives of Genesis.¹² And, as just  noted, such designations fail to take seriously the longstanding Jewish practice of labeling the entirety of the first five books of the Hebrew canon as Torah.   


27 comments:

Duncan said...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3259955?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Not law.

Duncan said...

https://time.com/5606942/jewish-christian-bible/

"As the Jewish scholar Moshe Goshen-Gottstein put it, where Christians see the Bible as a story about God, humanity and salvation, Jews read it as being about God, people and >>land<<."

Edgar Foster said...

1) The article you referenced above does not seem to completely discount the translation "law," for torah. See page 2. Compare the bottom of p. 4 through page 5.

What about the bottom of page 6 and page 7?

2) Yes, the Bible is about God, people, and land. None of those things negates law or instruction: Genesis 26:5.

3) Have you ever noticed how English translations generally render Ezra 7:10?

4) I've found some writers that say Torah" is mistranslated as "law" or that it's somewhat inaccurate. However, plenty of evidence militates against that view. The article you linked above even touches on this issue. So far, I have not seen him say "law" is wrong for torah, but I'm not finished yet.

See also https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/torah-pentateuch/

https://www.billmounce.com/hebrewvocabulary/%D7%AA%D6%BC%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%A8%D6%B8%D7%94

Duncan said...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44390642?seq=1
I would like to know what this article has to say?

Duncan said...

The above paper seems to focus on Leviticus for the term "law". See - https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7518/2991ce2144aba4ccdfce69abb394ee888bde.pdf
IMO the "law" (principles) would have been understood at the time it was implemented just as I believe that the curses in deuteronomy had already been experienced to some extent by the people before it was penned (updated). If it was a law it was certainly not arbitrary or only symbolic. Something that can only be abolished with tangible consequences.

Edgar Foster said...

I'm sure you've read how laws differ from principles, and this seems to be correct. But the word/concept "law" has many definitions, dimensions, and applications. Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274 CE) made a distinciton between divine law, natural law, eternal law and positive law. The Bible also uses "nomos" in interesting ways when it talks about the law of sin and death over against the law of the spirit or the law of the Christ. Gal. 6:7 has also been called an immutable law, which focuses on consequences.

I agree that what YHWH gave Israel was not arbitrary or purely symbolic. The law (nomos) was added to make transgressions manifest and it led people to Christ. In this respect, the law was a tutor or custodian.

Edgar Foster said...

I can get the Becking article through ILL. Might just do that.

Duncan said...

“Against a still common view it must be stated that in Paul χαρις does not mean primarily a divine attribute (Wobbe, Charis-Gedanke, 32). It does not mean, in good Greek fashion, God’s graciousness, nor concetely his free love (Taylor). It almost always means the power of salvation which finds expression in specific gifts, acts, and spheres and which is even individualized in the charismata.” —Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. G. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 14.

“In Paul ... χαρις is never merely an attitude or disposition of God (God’s character as gracious); consistently it denotes something much more dynamic—the wholly generous act of God. Like ‘Spirit,’ with which it overlaps in meaning (cf., e.g., [Rom] 6:14 and Gal 5:18), it denotes effective divine power in the experience of men.” —James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), p. 17.

Edgar Foster said...

In his review of the NWT, Steven T. Byington wrote:

"You note the list contains kindness, lovingkindness and undeserved kindness. These three English expressions represent three different unrelated Greek words, the last one being charis which many translators render grace. But the proper meaning of grace is not clear to readers in general. In Scripture it has many times the meaning the New World Translation gives it, undeserved kindness, so that using the qualifying adjective 'undeserved' is not to be viewed as needless or an overtranslation of the Greek word charis. It differentiates charis from other forms of kindness represented by other Greek words. Correspondingly the verb charizomai contains the element of kindness and this is retained in translating it kindly or freely forgive, to distinguish it from merely forgive which renders the verb aphiemi, as in the Lord's Prayer."

See also https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/charis

Duncan said...

I am specifically referring to the Pauline letters & do not deny its general meaning elsewhere.

Edgar Foster said...

I wasn't sure which direction you were taking the discussion, but Paul does use charis to signify undeserved kindness: Mounce and others discuss this point.

Duncan said...

Eleeo

2 Cor 4:1

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZtjodUF8A3cC&pg=PT555&lpg=PT555&dq=eleeo+%22undeserved+kindness%22&source=bl&ots=kQP4a-hE_r&sig=ACfU3U0RexR9emss1dPjHZtQbk_qKQ6e1A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJgtrH8oXrAhVrURUIHSylB0IQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=eleeo%20%22undeserved%20kindness%22&f=false

Duncan said...

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-did-moses-really-write-the-torah-1.5364732

Anonymous said...

What do you think of this debate of should we keep the Law between a Hebrew Israelite and a Urban Christian apologist?

https://youtu.be/36ZcHTcYFuQ

Anonymous said...

What are your thoughts on these Israelites breakdown on why we must keep the law covenant? https://youtu.be/8t-KCb5Hmdk

Edgar Foster said...

These folks eisegete instead of exegeting scripture. Regarding Matthew 5:17, think about the fulfillment of a contract. It doesn't mean the contract is demolished, but once fulfilled, a person may go to the next phase. They need to read Romans 6:14-16; 7:1-14; 8:3-4; 10:1-4. See also Galatians 3:23-25.

Edgar Foster said...

Christians are under a different law. They sort of understand that point. What about the law of the Christ? Galatians 6:1-2, and the fact that Christ gives a new command in John 13?

Edgar Foster said...

Here's another thought. Read 2 Corinthians 3:1-11 about the written code versus the spirit. The new covenant is more glorious than the Mosaic code.

Edgar Foster said...

Do people also ignore or shut their eyes to Galatians, where Paul argues vigorously that the law of God (Mosaic law) could never bring about righteousness. We needed something else, charis and pistis in our Lord Jesus.

1 Set Free said...

The 10 Commandments were not "added to make transgressions manifest". The "added" law was added to the 10 Commandments! The 10 Commandments were given BEFORE the sin of idol worship, so the sacrificial law, to restore righteousness, was added as a witness against us. Deuteronomy 31:24-29
"24And it came to pass, when Moses had finished {made an end of} writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25That Moses commanded the Levites, who bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, 26Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. 27For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death! 28Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. 29For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands."

So far, EVERYHING Moses predicted came true.

1 Set Free said...

I dont use my G-Mail. Please answer at latanyia.williams@yahoo.com

1 Set Free said...

I don't think HIs eisegete, so much as take the scriptures for what they say. While I don't agree with EVERYTHING, there is a substantial amount that you cannot argue with, such as,
The 10 Commandments are not Mosaic Law, as they were NOT GIVEN through Moses.
If you read the account in Exodus 19 and 20, you will see that MOSES was at the bottom of the mountain with the rest of the people when the Word of God was speaking directly to them. Also, they are the ONLY LAWS written IN STONE, by GOD'S OWN FINGER!

1 Set Free said...

Jesus did not give any law that doesn't put the Father first and foremost. The first four Commandments tell us HOW God wants that done. Nothing Jesus said absolves us of that. In fact, as he told the young man in Matthew 19:17, "....if thou would have LIFE, keep the Commandments."

The next 6 Commandments tell us how to love each other. Nobody has a problem with them. Nobody has a problem with the first 3. But when it comes to keeping the Sabbath Holy, we are taught to disregard them all rather than simply doing what God says.
Don't you find it curious that Rome was the dominant world power when the God-ordained 7th Day of worship and rest was changed to the day Romans worshipped the sun? Now, the scripture at Colossians 2:16 is consistently used to to denigrate the need to do as God says, whole most are totally incognizant of its context beginning at at verse 8:
"8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

The world keeps sun- day, or no day at all. So how are "Christians" separate from the world if they do what the world says do?
All 10 Commandments are still vital for followers of Jesus Christ.
Rev 22:14
"14Blessed are they that wash their robes {do His commandments}, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

1 Set Free said...

The Law of Christ does not contradict the 6 Commandments that direct us on how to love each other. And any New Commandment only complements, not replaces, the Commandments of God;
"9As the Father hath loved Me, so have I loved you; continue ye in My love. 10If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love, even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love."
Jesus set the perfect example that we should follow. None of it makes any of the 10 Commandments obsolete.

1 Set Free said...

What part of the 10 Commandments was written by Moses? It is misleading to equate that which was written by God's own Finger with that established to stone for sins.
I understand being led by Holy Spirit, but if a 'spirit' leads you to disregard God's Commandments, you should question it.
"1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test {try} the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1John 4:1)

1 Set Free said...

No one need ignore that "the law for righteousness", the sacrificial law that was added, was not sufficient, but pointed to the unblemished Lamb of God.
However, Jesus' fulfillment of that law does not absolve us from keeping the Law that sacrifice was added to.
"12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:12-13)

Edgar Foster said...

Dear 1 Set Free,

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this issue. Quite frankly, we disagree and I may address where we part ways at another time. But for now, I have allowed you to share your view of the relevant texts. I'm going to close this thread for now, but hope to one day address some of your points. I'm working on other posts now and my time is limited.

But if one reads Romans 2-4 in context, I don't think Paul is encouraging Law observance, but rather being dependent on charis (grace/unmerited favor). Still, he says that gives us no license to sin.