I’ve been talking recently with a new friend about how to memorise the #SermonontheMount.
Thought I’d share my thoughts here, just as an interested amateur, in case they encourage others (a) to share their methods, (b) to have a go at memorising this beautiful sermon themselves.
1. Structure and Hierarchy!
I find this the single most helpful element in memorising longer units.
What is the overall structure of the sermon, at the most birds-eye level? E.g.:
Intro
Law and Prophets (Ethics; Devotion; Common Struggles)
Conclusion
Then, each of those units break down into their own structure.
E.g. Ethics. This breaks down into two groups of three sayings each: (a) murder; adultery; divorce. (b) oaths; eye for an eye; love your enemies.
2. #Mnemonics
At every stage, I look for creative mnemonics to help me more easily grasp these structural elements.
E.g.: to help me with the 'Ethics' part of the sermon...
3. Individual Units
After repeating this structure-hierarchy-mnemonic cycle as many times as I need to, I end up with individual units of text - perhaps ~3-5 verses each. In the Sermon on the Mount these units are pretty easy to spot, which makes things much more straightforward.
But still, memorising these small units can still be tricky, so I have a toolkit of memory aids to help me here, too.
(a) Key words
The main bulk of this unit is taken up with three specific examples, which I can summarise with three ‘c’s: Cheek; Coat; Carry (I’m assuming that the reason the person is being forced to walk a mile is so that they can carry some gear).
(b) Chain Links
In this technique, I link one sentence to the next using some sort of thematic link, or sound link, or logical link. Theoretically, you can memorise long strings of text just using this method (but see warning below!)
4. The lovely thing about this method, combining hierarchy, structure, structural mnemonics, and mnemonics for small units of text, is that it frees me to ‘enter’ the text at any point. I don’t just have to start at the beginning and keep parroting until I get to the bit I want.
And if (as often happens!) I find one section of the text has got a bit rusty in my mind - no matter! I can simply skip that small unit and go onto the next, then come back to refresh the weak section later.
5. But why bother memorising?
I find the process itself v helpful in getting me to actually engage with the text, rather than just reading it over and over. E.g., in memorising the SOTM I have been struck by how the Lord’s Prayer in the very middle acts like a kind of axle...
and everything else in the sermon revolves around that axle and links to it. And at the heart of everything: “your Father in Heaven”! How that changes the tone of the whole sermon!
And once memorised, the ability to just access a particular unit and meditate on it at any time (brushing teeth, travelling to and from work, etc) is a wonderful wonderful privilege.
This just means 'how #Biblical #Hebrew changed over time'.
If you think about it, the #OldTestament / #HebrewBible was written over a period of 100s of years.
How many 100s is, of course, a huge question. But even on a v. minimalistic reading, we're talking several hundred years.
Languages change over that sort of time frame. Just think about reading Dickens. Not that long ago, but quite different language.
Same with Biblical Hebrew.
We're at a v. odd point in scholarship at the moment. In some critical quarters there has been a trend for many years to suggest that more and more of the Hebrew Bible was written after the return from #exile (i.e, v. roughly in the 400s and later).
I'm still plodding on with #memorisation of #Psalm106, in between other bits and bobs.
I was very struck the other day by verses 34-38,
which have something pretty profound to say to believers about (a) the apparent over-harshness of the Canaanite Conquest (b) thin ends of wedges
The vv have a 7+1 pattern, showing a downward spiral that starts with 'less than full obedience' and ends with murdering children:
They didn't wipe out the Canaanites -> they mingled with them -> copied them -> worshipped their gods -> were ensnared -> sacrificed their children
This chilling passage won't solve the apologetic 'problem' of the #Canaanite massacre, but they do show the believer (a) that the Lord's heart has always been to rid this world of bloodshed, even in those passages where, at one level, His commands seem to promote bloodshed.
1/8
I'm frequently astonished by just how much we *don't* yet know about the Masoretic Text.
Which is remarkable, given that it is the only complete Hebrew Bible the Lord has chosen to give us.
A tiny, trivial(ish) example, just because it's what I'm thinking about right now:
In Genesis 36:6, according to the accents of the MT, did Esau take his wives, his sons, and his daughters (i.e. 3 groups)
or
his wives and his <sons and daughters> (i.e. 2 groups)
The ESV takes the first option, while the NIV, by not using commas, leaves it ambiguous
So do the accents help?
At first glance, it all seems easy:
the telisha gedola (red) is a pausal accent, while the munah (green) is a conjunctive.
So this seems to support the
wives + <sons and daughters> interpretation
This is the Mesad Hashavyahu letter, which I enjoyed reading today with students.
From the time of the #prophet #Jeremiah - the last stormy decades before Judah went into exile.
While big troubles brewed at the political level, everyday troubles continued for everyday people
The 'letter' (written in ink on broken pottery pieces, as was common) is a plea from a lowly hired field worker to a local official, claiming that his overseer in the fields has mistreated him - unfairly confiscating his coat.
#unfair!
The #Hebrew is wonderful: the breathy, erratic, dislocated speech of a wronged man making his plea for justice:
"so there I was, workin' away. An' I'd just finished me measurin' and stackin' - just like normal before Sabbath - when along comes Hoshayahu and takes me coat!"
One pretty prevalent critical view of the #Exodus narratives, proposed by Redford, but popularised by #IsraelFinkelstein, is that - though they may hold some earlier memories - they were written in the 7th century, and basically reflect the 7th c Egyptian context.
Much could be said in response to this rather depressing claim (and has been by, e.g., Hoffmeier)
A recently finished PhD gives a bit more data relating to this question, and suggests that the Redford-Finkelstein position doesn't really fit the facts.
Ella Karev's PhD thesis examines what kinds of slavery were dominant in Egypt between 900BC and 330BC.
Google the title and you can download it for yourself:
"Slavery and Servitude in Late Period Egypt (c. 900 – 330 BC)"
This is beautiful!
This little #manuscript seems to be written by a regular, non-professional, member of the Jewish community of Fustat, Egypt, about 1000 years ago.
They made a little shorthand manuscript of #Psalms, for their own personal use.
This person knew the Psalms pretty well, so could abbreviate most of the words by chopping off the last letter or two (which seems more impressive when you remember that #Hebrew words tend to be short: say, 2-6 letters in the main).
This little snippet is from Psalm 9: 17-18.
But here, the writer's knowledge of the book of Psalms has actually led them astray...
Do you see the line in the image with lots of dots over all the letters? Those are erasure dots: (s)he wants, in effect, to cross out that line.