MennoNet.com

Transferred from this thread.

haithabu wrote:

Solomon knew that some of the things he said in Ecclesiastes weren’t literally true. The eastern mindset wasn’t concerned about that.

I agree with that. I see that also in Jacob's complaint to Laban:

....you changed my wages ten times....(Genesis 31:41)

-which is not literally true according to the text.

Now the question is to what extent do we apply this to interpreting Jesus' teaching? For example, in his teachings on marriage and divorce does he really mean to say that remarriage is always fully equivalent to adultery or is he making an eastern-style overstatement to emphasize a salient point?

Not wanting to restart that particular discussion, at least not in this thread, but I raise it to question whether we ever consider this in understanding how to apply Jesus' teachings. That is certainly not the traditional Anabaptist approach, which leans toward the literal.

I have a copy of a book by F.F. Bruce buried somewhere in my files. I don't remember the title or the scope of the book, but he was speaking about Hebrew and some of its characteristics. In that context he said that Hebrew used strong verbs and nouns rather than descriptive adjectives and adverbs. Here's an illustration from Jesus' teachings.

Luk_14:26  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

This is strong language and western readers could easily misunderstand it. Maybe because of this, the NT itself offers an interpretation, giving it as Hebrew listeners would have understood it, in a parallel passage...

Mat 10:37-38  He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  (38)  And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Maybe someone has some more examples? Or some advice on knowing how to identify hyperbole in the NT?

A friend of mine who is a biblical studies scholar claims that much of Jesus' words needs interpreted in light of this. I feel comfortable with this to an extent, but not when the only purpose is to recraft Jesus' words to lay no obligation on me at all.

Josh wrote:A friend of mine who is a biblical studies scholar claims that much of Jesus' words needs interpreted in light of this. I feel comfortable with this to an extent, but not when the only purpose is to recraft Jesus' words to lay no obligation on me at all.

I agree with that concern.

Maybe someone has some more examples? Or some advice on knowing how to identify hyperbole in the NT?

"If your right hand causes you to sin....."

"...whoever shall say 'you fool' shall be in danger of hell."

One of the realizations that amazed me when I was young was how at its heart, all humans in every race are emotionally the same. Hyperbole can be found in the writings of every culture on earth.

In identifying Biblical hyperbole vs absolute mandates, I always depend on a Biblical commentary that I trust. Top notch translators and commentaries spend years studying the signifiers within the context that identify those differences.

MaxPC wrote:One of the realizations that amazed me when I was young was how at its heart, all humans in every race are emotionally the same. Hyperbole can be found in the writings of every culture on earth.

Can you provide evidence of that?

I really don't think all cultures are emotionally the same, living in Germany convinced me of that, time in many other countries has confirmed that. And we probably don't all use the same figures of speech. It's definitely true that we see Hyperbole in Greek literature, the Old Testament, and in modern American and European cultures. I wouldn't be surprised to find cultures that do not use it.

Josh wrote:A friend of mine who is a biblical studies scholar claims that much of Jesus' words needs interpreted in light of this. I feel comfortable with this to an extent, but not when the only purpose is to recraft Jesus' words to lay no obligation on me at all.

I agree with both of you. But it's not always easy to know which parts are meant completely literally and which ones are not. Mennonites tend to take more of the Sermon on the Mount literally than some people, for instance, but even we might look at three sections in the same chapter and decide that two sections in a row are hyperbole but the next one is not, and that might depend on our beliefs about a given topic.

Bootstrap wrote:

MaxPC wrote:One of the realizations that amazed me when I was young was how at its heart, all humans in every race are emotionally the same. Hyperbole can be found in the writings of every culture on earth.

Can you provide evidence of that?

I really don't think all cultures are emotionally the same, living in Germany convinced me of that, time in many other countries has confirmed that. And we probably don't all use the same figures of speech. It's definitely true that we see Hyperbole in Greek literature, the Old Testament, and in modern American and European cultures. I wouldn't be surprised to find cultures that do not use it.

I Would be surprised to find cultures that don't use it. Symbolism is rampant in culture, though different in each one. Hyperbole is in the same mold, in that it may use "over the top" phrases in describing something to make the point of importance.
It originated in Greece, and is almost a transliteration in our English form.

gcdonner wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to find cultures that do not use it.

I would be surprised to find cultures that don't use it.

Well, if someone had real evidence one way or another, at least one of us would be surprised. Until then, your guess is as good as mine.

I'm often surprised how many things are not cultural universals. Fewer than 1/2 of cultures kiss, for instance.

Bootstrap wrote:

gcdonner wrote: Well, if someone had real evidence one way or another, at least one of us would be surprised. Until then, your guess is as good as mine.

As one who loves to study and watch other cultures, I do find this in many and I can not think of a major culture that does not use it. I am sure there may be a few minor cultures that do/did not use it. I suspect they would be the exception, not the rule.

Fro Gilgamesh and Beowulf forward, we have found hyberbole. Most stories carry it as a tool. Before most cultures were literate, they had to memorize things. Hyberbole and many other structural tools were used to aid in this. Here is an example.

I walked into the woods and a branch bumped me in the head.

Who will really remember that?

Walking into the dark foreboding forest, I turned and was struck by a branch that appeared out of nowhere, as if some unseen hand wielded it to gain my attention.

The hyberbole is a tool to gain attention and visualize an experience. Once visualized, it aids in memorization. Oral cultures use many story telling tools to pass on the morals, principles, and culture to others. Both sentences are true, but one is memorable while the other is not. One would be retold while the other is not.

I was once told that one theory about the NT was the stories we have were the ones worth dying for. We do not hear about Jesus waking up, getting breakfast, cleaning he clothes and washing his face. Reason is they were not worth dying for, since multiple times in the early church history, persecution drove the narrative. Why pass on a story not worth telling if you would die from it? Pass on the important things. It also forced the tellers to craft it in a way that it could b remembered orally and it passed something important to the hearer. I would not want to die telling someone about Jesus waking up to do mundane things. I would be willing to tell the story of his death and resurrection though. This does not make the story wrong or untrue, but told in a way that, one would impart memorization, and two would pass on a deeper meaning. We have to remember that all scripture, new and old, were carried orally for a time, some hundreds of years, before getting written down. They had to be told in a way that it would be remembered. They did not have the luxury of going back and reading it again.