Rabbinic modes of interpretation and some exemplary texts
Note: credit for these insights must be given to David Stern, author of the Jewish New Testament and Commentary.
p’shat - “simple” -
- the plain meaning of the writer, the equivalent of grammatical-historical exegesis (note: p’shat then, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s p’shat now!)
remez - “hint”
- wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implication is that God can hint at things which the writers themselves were unawares;
midrash - “(re)search”
- an allegorical application, a species of eisegesis - reading one’s own thought’s into the text. The implication is that words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, whereby God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all;
sod - “secret”
- a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at using numerical values of Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters etc. The implication is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even individual letters.
Modern readers of the Bible by using “grammatical-historical exegesis” ignore all modes of interpretation except the p’shat, discounting them as eisegesis. This is in reaction to the tendency of the early Church Fathers to over-allegorize, misusing the other three rabbinic approaches to texts. But the New Testament is a Jewish book, written by Jews in a Jewish context and the first-century Jewish context included all four ways of handling texts.
First example - a ‘remez’
This example is taken from Matthew 2:14-15,
“So he got up, tooke the child and his mother and left during the night for Egypt, where he stayed until Herod died. This happened in order to fulfil what Adonai had said through the prophet, “Out of Egypt, I called my son”
The last part of this is a direct quotation of Hosea 11:1. The Hosea passage presents the p’shat meaning, in a clear reference to Israel, as a people, being brought out of Egypt in the Exodus narrative. (Israel is called God’s son as far back as Exodus 4:22). There is no question that the Hosea passage is speaking about Israel and not the Messiah. That is the p’shat meaning of that passage.
What is Matthew doing, then, by quoting Hosea in this way. Some would suggest a midrash is being presented. David Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, prefers the suggestion that it is in fact a remez, a hint of a deeper truth that is being highlighted:
The Messiah has been presented as God’s son a few verses earlier, Matthew 1:18-25, reflecting Tanakh passages such as Isaiah 9:6-7, Psalm 2:7 and Proverbs 30:4. Thus the Son equals the son: the Messiah is equated with, is one with, the nation of Israel. This is the deep truth Matthew is hinting at by calling Yeshua’s flight to Egypt a “fulfilment” of Hosea 11:1
(The mystical identification between the Messiah and the people of Israel is an idea expounded at length by Karl Barth, in his church dogmatics, one of the best known Christian theologians of the 20th century)
The phrase, “what Adonai had said through the prophet” takes our attention off the prophet himself and put it on God who spoke through him. It lets the reader understand that Adonai might have been saying more than what the prophet himself understood when he wrote. It prepares him for the possibility that behind Hosea’s p’shat was God’s remez, to be revealed in its time.
See if you can find another remez in Matthew 2:18; a much more difficult one is contained in v.23, one that only a conversant Jewish scholar would recognise.
Second example - a ‘midrash’
This is an interesting example because many Christians are unaware of the real p’shat of these verses and so most people are unaware that the most common interpretation of Matthew 18:18 is actually a midrash. First century Jews would have undersood the simple p’shat of this verse:
Yes, I tell you that whatever you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. To repeat, I tell you that if two of you here on earth agree about anything people ask, it will be for them from my Father in heaven. For wherever two or three are assembled in my name, I am there with them (CJB)
… to be referring to dealing with making legal judgements and halakah (instruction meaning ‘way to walk’, a Jewish law or decreed communal practice) - not prayer, which is the midrash which is normally taken as implied by these verses. The words rendered “prohibit” and “permit” are literally “bind” and “loose,” terms used in first centry Judaism to mean “prohibit” and “permit.” The Jewish Encyclopedia explains that in this way
“Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula… by these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of the fingers’ that is ‘loose them’ as they have the power to do.” (Matthew 23:2-4)
(A similar transition of binding (and loosing) authority is said to occur in the second epistle of Clement to James II, whereby Peter appointed Clement as his successor).
Many Christians are more likely to have heard the familiar midrash on these verses which suggests that they refer to the “binding and loosing” power available to believers in prayer. From a Jewish point of view, it is not necessary to say that either view - p’shat or midrash - is correct and another not. Both are acceptable interpretations through which God is allowed to speak.
See if you can recognise the midrash in the following verses (that is passages wherein the biblical writers are writing midrashically - or eisegetically):
Third example - a ‘sod’ (please - no puns, no nominations)
In Jewish interpretation, gematria (shared root word with geometry) is a system of deducing the sod of a text by positing a meaningful connection between words whose numbers are either identical or related by simple arithmetic.
An example from Rabbinic literature: God is sometimes called the “Place” (“Makrom”). Gematria explains that the letters of YHVH are equivalent to 10, 5, 6, 5, the sum of the squares of which number 186 - the same as the number of “Makrom” (MKVM).
The most obvious biblical example of a ‘sod’ is the 666 of revelation, of which many, including Andrew in ‘The Coming of the Son of Man’ have remarked upon, noting that certain forms of the Roman Emporer Nero have that number.
Other example: the Greek for Jesus, Iesous, equals 888; 7 is regarded as the perfect number and triple repetition symbolises absolute ultimacy (e.g. Isaiah 6.3); thus 888 means that the Messiah, Jesus, is absolutely and ultimately beyond perfection.
Some of the most hotly contested texts between Judaism and Christianity, such as Psalm 2:12 and 22:14, Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 53 can be viewed, understood and even harmonised by reference to the rabbinic modes of interpretations, in ways that strict adherence to historical-critical analysis won’t allow.
For example, Psalm 2:12 is normally translated by Christians “Kiss the Son,” whereas Jewish Bibles translate variously, “Worship in purity,” “Pay homage in good faith.” Interestingly, 12th century Jewish scholar, Avraham Ibn-Ezra writes,
“Serve the Lord” refers to HaShem, and ‘Kiss the Son’ refers to the Messiah, the meaning of bar, ‘son’ is as we find in Proverbs 31:2”
Enjoy! - john
Re: Rabbinic modes of interpretation and some exemplary texts
John, thanks for all this - it is very interesting. One question on this quote:
"Many Christians are more likely to have heard the familiar midrash on these verses which suggests that they refer to the “binding and loosing” power available to believers in prayer. From a Jewish point of view, it is not necessary to say that either view - p’shat or midrash - is correct and another not. Both are acceptable interpretations through which God is allowed to speak."
How do you explain this - what appears to be a fundamental difference between Christians and Jews when it comes to reading or interpreting?
Larry
Jewish, Christian reading, interpreting
Hello Larry
Thanks for your question. Allowing for the obvious reality that there are always exceptions to these rules, I think the following are the most obvious differences which I have become aware of:
the Hebraic worldview v. the Platonic (Greek) worldview; the former integrated and earthy, the latter full of dualities and ethereal in its aspirations; Jewish history combined with this worldview lends itself to understanding that Scripture presents a view of salvation that is both individual and corporate; that it has in view definite deliverance from powerful, earthly manifestations of evil AND from the inner tendency towards evil - the power of sinful tendencies; the rich tradition within Judaism of rabbinic study, building on the four modes of interpretation (shorthand PaRDeS, meaning Garden) and the bet hamidrash method of study Jewish thought is rooted in the Torah; so Messianic Jewish New Testament studies and interpretation readily draw from a deep well of understanding - moreover they view the Scripture as an undivided entity; by contrast, I understand that many Christian traditions, for considerable periods have overlooked, ignored or even despised the OT. "To the Hebrew mind the primary purpose of the Torah is to instruct humanity as to how to hit the mark of life, as opposed to committing sin, which is to miss the mark." Thus they consider it to be life-giving (read Psalm 119!). To study Torah is considered a form of worship. By contrast, within the Babylonian cultural background of the Aramaic language and the Hellenistic framework of the Greek, the word "law" had a negative connotation, all of which has strongly flavoured new testament translations as well as interpretations which concern Torah (usually interpreted as "law") and its use and abuse. Jewish tradition has a clear understanding of the authority of Scripture as God’s message to humanity The Bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews, to Jews (Luke excepted)… I am sure they are some more elements. If you wanted to enquire more on these things, David Stern has written a good introduction to the Jewish roots of the Christian faith, entitled, Restoring the Jewishness of the Gospel.shalom! - john
Re: Jewish, Christian reading, interpreting
Thanks John,
I do have some more questions…
"Jewish history combined with this worldview lends itself to understanding that Scripture presents a view of salvation that is both individual and corporate; that it has in view definite deliverance from powerful, earthly manifestations of evil AND from the inner tendency towards evil - the power of sinful tendencies;"
Are you implying that Jews possess an inner tendency towards evil as a result of their worldview, history and understanding of the Torah? I doubt that that is what you were saying but it is not clear what you mean here.
"The Bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews, to Jews (Luke excepted)…"
And all this time we are told that The Torah was the word of God. Personally I am not disturbed by the notion that The Torah was written by man without any input from "God" - I believe this is more likely.
Hebraic worldview, evil and the inspiration of torah
Hello again, Larry
Heaven forbid! The "AND from" in my post was linked with "deliverance from." My point is that the Jewish worldview has within its "salvation horizons," in particular, BOTH deliverance from earthly manifestations of evil such as aggressive pagan enemy nations AND deliverance (salvation) from the disruption to covenant relationship caused by sin. I hope that’s clearer.
I fail to see the link between my post and your inference. That a "Jew wrote for a Jew," in a Hebraic worldview, in no way implies that the writing was without any input from YVHV, Adonai, HaShem - God. Since creation itself is a gift from God, even the meekest writing might be viewed as having input from God. Traditionally, certain writers - and their writings - within Judaism are recognised as having more authority, beginning with Moses. Thus the notion of Scripture being authoratively inspired by Adonai, is thoroughly Jewish.
Messianic Jewish Bible translator, David Stern, points out that the idea of "divine inspiration of Scripture" is rooted in the idea of "breathing into", meaning not that God dictated every word so that human authors were really mere secretaries - as, I understand is said to be the case with the Koran - "but rather, that the authors often expressed what God had breathed into them, through their own personalities, in their own words" - thus it is that particular concept of inspiration which, it might be argued, makes the Bible "Jewish" in its inherent character.
shalom! - john
Re: Hebraic worldview, evil and the inspiration of torah
So really all we are talking about here is some form of divine inspiration?
here? where? yes... no
To which "here" do you refer, Larry? The last two paragraphs, or the entire post? If "here" means the last two paragraphs out of the forty or so that I’ve written on this post, the answer is Yes; if you by "here" you mean the entire post, the answer is, No, that’s not all we are talking about.
You sound frustrated by the introduction of the idea that Jews believe that God inspired Scripture. Why?
shalom! - john
Re: here? where? yes... no
I was refering to your posts so I think we are on the same side of the discussion John :)
I don’t know that I am frustrated - just eternally searching for answers to somethings that most likely will never be scientifically determined. I guess what I am saying is that I don’t doubt that the OT (or NT for that matter) explain a lot of this - I’m just not ready to take it at face value.
Thanks for your (and everyone elses) help on my journey!
Larry
Re: Rabbinic modes of interpretation and some exemplary texts
John, I really enjoyed this post. Can I claim this is your Point:
"Modern readers of the Bible by using “grammatical-historical exegesis” ignore all modes of interpretation except the p’shat, discounting them as eisegesis. This is in reaction to the tendency of the early Church Fathers to over-allegorize, misusing the other three rabbinic approaches to texts. But the New Testament is a Jewish book, written by Jews in a Jewish context and the first-century Jewish context included all four ways of handling texts."
I believe the suggestion here is that overcompensating in an effort to bring a balanced exegesis forward, lead to a loss of Understanding; In this case a loss of Jewishness.
Who is the modern reader? Do scholars and educators fail to teach the other methods? Are readers governed by fear due to past excesses? How did the reader acquire this fear? It sounds like a complaint but the problem is not clearly defined. (Quotes From)PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH SECTION ONE: "I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE" CHAPTER TWO: GOD COMES TO MEET MAN ARTICLE 3: SACRED SCRIPTURE III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE(Definitions are from The New Catholic Dictionary)
exegesis (Greek: a leading out, explanation)The art and science of expressing the sense of the Sacred Scriptures. To accomplish its purpose, exegesis applies the science of hermeneutics. Apart from the fact that all ancient literatures are difficult to understand and can be approached successfully by the trained mind alone, the Bible has peculiar difficulties of its own. It is God’s written revelation to man and as such expresses Divine mysteries and all that is related to them. The history of Catholic exegesis in the patristic period contains no instance of continued explanations of the Sacred Text prior to Hippolytus. The Fathers of the first centuries in their apologetic writings did, however, make frequent use of proofs based upon Bible texts. The two schools of catechetics founded at Alexandria and Antioch soon devoted themselves to the exegesis of the Sacred Books. At Alexandria, Pantrenus, Clement, and especially Origen, established a system of interpretation. Origen admitted a literal, moral, and spiritual sense in the Scriptures, but not always all three in each passage. He erred by stressing the allegorical and mystical interpretation to the neglect and at times the exclusion of the literal sense. At Antioch more correct principles were applied since the grammatical-historical sense was given due prominence. Saint John Chrysostom and Theodoret are the chief glories of this school. Theodore of Mopsuestia (died 429) went to the extreme of practically rejecting the typical sense and denying that allegories could be inspired. The Syrian School of Edessa produced the great scholars Aphraates and Saint Ephraem. The Latin Church glories chiefly in Saint Augustine and the greatest of all biblical scholars, Saint Jerome. The post-patristic period in the Greek Church was famous chiefly for its compilations of excerpts from the Greek Fathers. These are called catenae because they are linked together in a continuous commentary. Among the Latins Bede followed a similar method. Walafrid Strabo is the author of the "Glossa Ordinaria" and Anselm of Laon of the "Glossa Interlinearis." The scholastics devoted their attention to theological explanations of Holy Writ and the sequence of ideas. Philological studies began extensively to influence exegesis after Clement V had established chairs of oriental languages in the principal universities. The results of this enactment may be seen in the celebrated "Postilla" of Nicholas of Lyra (died 1340), a work which received notable additions by Paul of Burgos (died 1435). After the Council of Trent the Golden Age of Catholic exegesis produced important commentaries of more than 350 exegetes. Estius, Luke of Bruges, Tirinius, A Lapide, Menchius, Maldonado and Bonfrere may be explicitly mentioned. The 18th century saw the introduction into exegesis of more critical methods. Calmet was perhaps the greatest light of this century. Modern Catholic commentaries are numerous and marked by sane scholarship. The French commentaries of the Dominican Biblical School and the Latin "Cursus S. Scripturae" of the Jesuits merit special mention. Scriptural periodicals of importance are: "Biblica" (Pontifical Biblical Institute) ; "Revue biblique," and "Biblische Zeitschrift." These list and review new publications and make accessible to the reader the results of recent research.
hermeneutics (Greek: hermeneuo, interpret)
The art and science of interpreting the Sacred Writings and of inquiring into their true sense. This science defines the laws which exegetes must follow in order to determine and explain the sense of Holy Writ. It presupposes that the interpreter have a knowledge of scriptural languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and of Semitic languages generally. Other subsidiary languages and sciences that contribute greatly to the literature of the subject or to a knowledge of the various biblical periods, their social and cultural setting, etc., are regarded as preliminary knowledge required of the exegete. Hermeneutics recognizes a twofold sense of Holy Writ, a literal and a typical. Since the literal sense is also the basis of the typical it is always present. Not every passage of the Bible has a typical sense. Before determining rules of interpretation, it must be kept in mind that the Bible has a twofold aspect: it is a literature written by men, and it is God’s Word entrusted to the Church to guard and explain. As a literature the Bible requires the application of grammatical and rhetorical rules if the literal sense is to be determined. The class of literature to which each book or passage of the Bible belongs must be ascertained. The sense is then arrived at by studying the signification of the words themselves, of these words in their context, proximate and remote, in parallel passages, and in the light of the author’s purpose. Because the Bible is God’s Word the interpreter must treat it with reverence. He cannot admit in it errors attributable to the Author. Primitive texts, i.e., autographs, have to be free from mistakes, but textual corruptions frequently occur in the transmission of the Bible text, however not in matters of faith or morals, and not of a kind that would affect the substantial integrity or trustworthiness of the Text. The Catholic interpreter must accept the Church’s definitions of the sense of Bible passages. The Church, however, has defined but few texts expressly, although in the definition of dogmas and the condemnation of errors many texts are implicitly defined. Furthermore the unanimous consent of the Fathers in interpreting any text of the Bible that pertains to faith or morals cannot be set aside, since the consent of the Fathers in such matters is proof that their interpretation has descended, as a matter of Catholic Faith from the Apostles. The sense once determined is given in translations, paraphrases, glosses, dissertations, and commentaries
“the rich tradition within Judaism of rabbinic study, building on the four modes of interpretation (shorthand PaRDeS, meaning Garden) and the bet hamidrash method of study “
p’shat - “simple” - the plain meaning of the writer, the equivalent of grammatical-historical exegesis (note: p’shat then, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s p’shat now!)• 116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
———-117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
remez - “hint”
wherein a word, phrase or other element in the text hints at a truth not conveyed by the p’shat. The implication is that God can hint at things which the writers themselves were unawares; midrash - “(re)search” an allegorical application, a species of eisegesis - reading one’s own thought’s into the text. The implication is that words of Scripture can legitimately become grist for the mill of human intellect, whereby God can guide to truths not directly related to the text at all; 1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84 sod - “secret” a mystical or hidden meaning arrived at using numerical values of Hebrew letters, noting unusual spellings, transposing letters etc. The implication is that God invests meaning in the minutest details of Scripture, even individual letters. 3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86 —- With out the emphasis on numerical valuesanagogical sense (Greek: anagogikos, that which leads up; e.g., the teachings of the Bible lead to eternal life) That division of the typical sense which includes blessings to be hoped for, and which refers particularly to the future life. The rest which the Israelites found in Chanaan is anagogically typical of eternal rest in heaven (Psalm 94; Hebrews 4). Jerusalem in its anagogical sense is typical of the Church triumphant
————-
"To the Hebrew mind the primary purpose of the Torah is to instruct humanity as to how to hit the mark of life, as opposed to committing sin, which is to miss the mark." Thus they consider it to be life-giving (read Psalm 119!). To study Torah is considered a form of worship.
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85
Short of writing an essay this was the easiest way I could attempt to show some parallels. It’s important to remember, the concept Judeo-Christian Tradition is used to explain the simularities that can be easily ignored; each point you made says more to me about the fundamental similarities between Christians and Jews. J
the Hebraic worldview v. the Platonic (Greek) worldview… Jewish history combined with this worldview… Jewish thought is rooted in the Torah; … By contrast, within the Babylonian cultural … Jewish tradition has a clear understanding … The Bible is a Jewish book, written by Jews, to Jews (Luke excepted)…Re: Rabbinic modes of interpretation and some exemplary texts
Hi John
In your OP you set us some quiz questions:
I enjoyed your OP very much and I tried to figure out the answers to your questions. But I don’t think I did too well at it! Will you put me out of my suspense please?
Thanks … Phil
another midrashic example
Of course, I will, Phil! But if you feel brave enough to put forward some of your thoughts I’d be interested to hear them. Perhaps one particular further example might make things a bit clearer…
One of the most obvious midrashic teachings, which I overlooked last time around, was Galatians 3, in which the rabbi Paul picks up on the remez (hint) in the Genesis text which speaks about "and his seed."
The original writer, would almost certainly have had no idea of the hint contained within his writing and the way a messianic Jewish rabbi like Paul would use it in the future to teach about the unique role of the Messiah in bringing the promise of Abraham to "all the families of the earth" (Genesis 12:1-3; Galatians 3:8))
But in Galatians, Paul works a midrash upon the remez "his seed" as he explains,
This is a typical and "indisputable" evidence of the way Paul employed the "PaRDeS" method of rabbinical teaching. Once you begin to see it, you can find it in evidence more and more; this kind of insight, of course, gets easily overlooked by the critical-historical-exegetical method, which leads to it’s own extremes.
Personally, I think this probably has something quite significant to say to the kind of extended discussion which was in evidence recently on the "Prophecy and Realism" thread, but I found the pace and range of that discussion too much to attempt to intervene!
Anyone, Phil, let me know what you think, after you’ve had a look at the Galatians example - if you’re really ready to give up "I’ll spill the beans"!
shalom! - john
Re: another midrashic example
Well John, as is my wont, I have some half-baked notions but I am struggling to develop and articulate them. But here goes anyway …
Jeremiah 31:15 seems to describe the grief of Israelite parents whose children had been killed or exiled to Babylon in the 6th century BC. But Matthew uses it as a prediction that was fulfilled when Herod killed the male children in the vicinity of Bethlehem over 500 years later - something of which Jeremiah’s original audience would never have perceived from those words.
I have read more than one explanation of the difficult ‘quotation’ in Matthew 2:23, although all of them were tentative suggestions. Hopefully you can provide a less conjectural explanation. And does the same principle shed any light on the difficult ‘quotation’ in John 7:38?
John 6:51-58 is suggestive of the Eucharist - though was this merely an unplanned coincidence?
As an aside, when Caiaphas ‘prophecied’ that Jesus would die for the nation in John 11:50, I doubt he understood the deeper meaning of his words, although I imagine John smiling with his tongue in his cheek as he enjoyed sharing this in-joke with his Christian readers.
In 2 Corinthians 3:16-18 Paul refers to the shining face of Moses (the after-effects of him meeting God face-to-face) which Moses veiled from public view. Paul likens that veil to a metaphorical veil that covers the minds of unbelieving Jews and prevents them from understanding the truth about Jesus. Paul continues the analogy by describing Christians as having met the Lord (= Jesus?) face-to-face and reflecting his glory in their own unveiled faces. (By the way, is this an implicit statement of Jesus’s deity, since ‘the Lord’ in this passage is analogous to Jehovah on Mount Sinai?)
Was Hebrews 1:5-6 originally connected with the coronation of the (human) king of Israel? The author to the Hebrews re-uses it to demonstrate the divinity of Jesus. However, when applied to Jesus, the words ‘today’ and ‘become’ seem to contradict the idea of Jesus’s eternal Sonship.
In Romans 10 Paul quotes some words of Moses about the immanency and accessibility of God’s Law. Paul re-applies those words to indicate the ‘completedness’ of God’s work of atonement. The Saviour has already come down from heaven to earth, has died, and has been raised from the dead - and the only thing left for us to do is believe. Ironically Moses’s original words seem to emphasize the keeping of the Law, whereas Paul re-uses those words to emphasize the opposite.
The only other possible midrash I can see in Romans 10 is "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" In its original context I guess Isaiah was speaking about the heralds who announced to the exiled Jews that their 70 years’s punishment in Babylon was finished and they were about to be restored to their own land. Paul parallels those heralds with the gospel messengers who preached ‘salvation through faith in Jesus Christ’ to both Jews and Gentiles.
OK, John, now over to you … Many thanks!
re: midrashic examples and Jewish roots
phil - apologies for the delay in response - it got overlooked in the activities of life
I thought your comments were lively and appreciative of the midrashes. Your comment upon Jeremiah 31 seemed spot on. Ditto regarding the 2 Corinthians 3 passage and I certainly wouldn’t object to your interesting identification of a midrash or remez with respect to Jesus deity.
John 6 is interesting.
Hebrews 1
Romans 10
The Complete Jewish Bible has bold text to highlight the hundreds (430+ ?) Tanakh ("Old Testament") citations, which helps considerably in identification and serves to highlight how typically Jewish it is to perform midrashes upon the texts and how un-Jewish it is, and to some extent futile, to determinedly limit understanding and interpretation to historical-critical interpretation alone.
Finally, the tricky, Matthew 2.23 is a perfect example of this - a passage that could cause strict historical-critics to tear their hair out, or revert to the easier option of assuming writer error…
I hope you enjoyed sharing in these interesting discoveries. I have found the Jewish roots of my faith an invaluable source of both "light and truth" and encouragement. May you find them so.
shalom! - john