The Bible, like every text, can’t communicate without a reader. And every reader reads from their own context. So you can’t say “the Bible means X” - you can only say “I read the Bible as meaning X.” And preferably understand why - the context of your reading.
As all texts need to be interpreted to be read, so too every reading is therefore interpretation. Modern readers interpret for their own world and context. So too Luther. So too Jesus. So too the very first readers of the text in antiquity. None of these is the “right” reading.
“How the original Israelite audience would have understood it” isn’t the “correct” interpretation of the text. It’s just the oldest. Privileging it over the 2000 years of interpretation that followed is a very particular modern intellectual stance that should be interrogated.
“How Jesus understood it” isn’t correct either - nor is “how the ancient rabbis/Rashi understood it.” Those interpreters may be guides for many today, but they’re also reading from their own contexts. To follow their leads is also an intellectual stance to be interrogated.
“The Bible says” should really be followed only by a direct quotation of the biblical text, preferably in the original language, since all translation is also interpretation. “The Bible means” is a dead giveaway for someone who claims authority to determine universal truth.
Though critical, this stance is meant to be affirming: yes - for you, my Christian friend, maybe the sacrifice of Isaac is about Jesus. That’s a totally okay interpretation of the text! It is not, however, what the text means in any other context but your own. But go for it!
Critical reading of the Bible isn’t meant to replace the hegemony of confessional interpretation with the hegemony of “original intent.” It’s mean to allow us to see the situatedness of every reading, to recognize how context shapes every interpretation.
There is the text, which stands alone, effectively meaningless without its readers. And then there are the readers and their interpretations, none of which stand alone, but all emerge from their specific times and places. From the first reader to right now, it’s all reception.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Joel Baden

Joel Baden Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JoelBaden

12 Nov
Lev 25:18-22

Magical sabbatical year crops

Worried about how you're going to manage to eat enough in the sabbatical year, when you can't sow or harvest? Don't you fear: YHWH will make the sixth year miraculously abundant! Three years' worth in one! Well, that's reassuring.
It's utopian, obviously. But that's actually a pretty big deal, and sort of wild, when you think about it. Here's what is presented to us as law - don't sow or harvest in the seventh year - but which can't ever have actually been practiced, or even imagined to be practiced.
We might think of this through a somewhat skeptical lens as H writing from a time when none of these good things happened, and Israel was in some trouble, and that could be blamed, in fact, on Israel not having followed these laws, which were given so long ago.
Read 4 tweets
9 Nov
#Leviticus 25:8-12

The jubilee year

Every fifty years, we get the jubilee: not just a year of rest like the sabbatical (though that too), but a year of restoration: everyone returns to their lands and to their people. What a nice biblical idea! Except it isn’t (biblical).
The big announcement of the fiftieth year is the restoration, or dror (דרור). This word comes to Hebrew, and the Bible, from the Akkadian andurarum, which is the same basic concept, just at the whim of the king rather than set on the calendar.
Always good to have the reminder that so much of what is known as biblical law is in fact just borrowed ancient Near Eastern practice. (You may think that these are God’s laws, but if they are, God nicked them from Mesopotamia.)
Read 8 tweets
8 Nov
#Leviticus 25:1-7

The sabbatical year

Six years you can plant and harvest as usual; in the seventh year, though, none of that - you can eat only what the land produces on its own, without your intervention.

That ought to work out just fine.
There’s an obvious utopian quality to this law - as it will essentially go on to explain a few verses later. It might have once been workable on a field-by-field level, but not nationally, which is what is clearly proposed here. This is the sabbath writ large.
Having moved through all the realms of the sacred, we’re now come to the biggest and last: the land itself. The sabbath is about sacred time; the sabbatical is about sacred land (in time). It’s also fundamentally about property, as will become increasingly clear.
Read 4 tweets
1 Oct
#Leviticus 19:26-28

Sorcery (and why Jews wear beards and don’t get tattoos)

The thing about sorcery in the Bible is that it isn’t forbidden because it’s inherently evil. It isn’t forbidden because it’s “magic” (however defined). It’s forbidden because it works.
Sorcery (or divination, or augury, or whatever in this concept cluster) is problematic because it usurps YHWH’s power - and, particularly, the authority of the priests as the sole access to YHWH, and especially to oracular knowledge. Knowledge is power, don’t you know.
Sorcery is thus very much like child sacrifice - prohibited because of its efficaciousness, because it overrides or usurps divine authority, because it reveals alternative modes of manipulating power and knowledge. Such things are, as always, a threat to the powers that be.
Read 6 tweets
30 Sep
#Leviticus 19:23-25

Forbidden fruit

Sorry - not as sexy as it sounds. Like, literal forbidden fruit: no fruit from trees less than four years old can be eaten. Fine agricultural practice I’m sure - more interesting is the word for “forbidden” here: elsewhere, “uncircumcised.”
Same word used in both cases of literal circumcision (like Abraham in Gen 17) and some famous figurative language: Moses talking about his mouth, Jeremiah about people’s hearts and ears, etc.
I’m here to suggest that “uncircumcised” isn’t the base meaning of the word, but is a specialized (if common) application of a broader term meaning “covered, blocked.” Moses’s mouth, Jeremiah’s hearts and ears…and of course these premature fruit trees.
Read 4 tweets
29 Sep
#Leviticus 19:20-22

Slavery and sex, in one law!

As you can imagine, it ain’t great. Usually, the punishment for adultery is death. But if the woman is a slave, well, then she’s not really a person, you see, and so the (free) man just has to pay - like he damaged property.
But, but, slavery in the Bible was better than -

Shut it. This is some straight dehumanizing shit here, and defending it means you love this old-ass book more than you love your fellow humans, and you can call that whatever you like, but I call it deeply immoral.

Rant over.
(This kind of shit - which I received just this morning, amazingly): Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(