Talk:Pardes (exegesis)

message: For instance:
God was so intimately involved in history that:
a town was named Timnath (the appointment) (Remez)
a law was given requiring that a brother give his deceased brother and heir (Remez)
a daughter-in-law lost two husbands without an heir (Remez)
a father-in-law denied her his third son the daughter-in-law played the harlot to her father-in-law (Remez)
she was promised a goat (Remez)
she asked for assurance (Remez) for the goat 
she was given three (Remez) items as an assurance: rod (Remez, signet ring (Remez, bracelet (Remez 
she had twins (Remez)
their names mean "breaking forth" and "the sunrise" (Remez)
God was so involved in the life of the author that the author recorded this odd transaction without really knowing why it was important. But God used the history, and the author, to paint a picture of the birth of His own Son (sod) such that:
Tamar:Mary made herself available at Timnath:the appointment (Drash) 
Tamar:Mary was promised a goat:scape goat "for he shall save his people from their sins." (Drash)
When Tamar:Mary asked for assurance of the promise, she was given three things: (Drash)
Rod: "The power of God will overshadow you"…" (Drash)
Signet ring: "He shall be called the Son of God" (Drash)
Bracelets: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife (in Numbers an empty vessel without bracelets is unclean. Mary was not unclean, and Judah was told "there was no prostitute here" (Drash)
Tamar:Mary conceived , not by her legitimate husband, but by his father Judah:God (Drash)
Tamar:Mary was going to be killed:divorced until the father was identified. Afterwards she was honored. (Drash)
Tamar:Mary had twins: God-man (Drash)
their names mean "breaking forth" and "the sunrise" ::dayspring (Drash)
Phares:Jesus though born to Tamar:Mary first, was really the second breach:second man (Drash)
God was so involved in the history and lives of the people and authors that the human scribes were almost typewriters incarnate, and God left his fingerprints throughout his word with such shadows as the story of Tamar. The inspiration of the scriptures goes well beyond our conception of it. Every jot and tittle had real history behind the living, observation and recording of it. Every paragraph had God's hand on the whole of the author's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobCJones (talk • contribs) 11:08, August 4, 2007
:Hi Bob. There are two issues here. The first is whether there is an established system of Christian exegesis called Pardes. If not, there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article about it, no matter how similar Christian exegesis may seem to the Jewish exegesis system called Pardes.
:If reliable sources attest to the existence of such a system and the use of the name "Pardes" to describe it, you have several choices: you can create a new article Pardes (Christian exegesis), you can rename this article Pardes (exegesis) and create sections on Jewish and Christian exegesis; there may be other options as well.
:If the use of the word "Pardes" to describe a system of Christian exegesis that is similar to the Jewish exegesis system called Pardes is your own innovation, the term doesn't belong in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.
:Please note that the system of Christian exegesis may be sufficiently significant that it belongs in Wikipedia; it is the use of the word "Pardes" to describe it that I am discussing here. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where should Christian usage of Pardes be included?

message: The page used to say that peshat is the literal interpretation. I believe that is incorrect as peshat allows for idioms and expression. As the wikpedia page on peshat notes, "Peshat literally means "simple," and describes the meaning of the text apparent at face value, 'which also takes into account simple idiomatic expressions (which, although not literal, its plain meaning is still apparent to the intended audience).'"
I believe it is more accurate characterize peshat as "plain meaning" or "contextual."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.78.49 (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peshat 

message: The article says, " In the apocalypses and in the Talmud the word is used of the Garden of Eden..." To which apocalypses does this refer? There are many in the Jewish Deuterocanon and Pseudepigraphia. Peter Chastain (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocalypses 

message: I can't make sense of this. The first line says "empty (tohu) and formless (vohu)", which would imply the Hebrew words in parenthesis mean the preceding English words (i.e. tohu=empty and vohu=formless) yet the next line says they mean different things, at least for tohu. I don't know where "bohu" came from or maybe that's a typo.. "Thus the phrase is 'amazement and desolation'." What phrase? And the earth was 'amazement and desolation'?? 71.155.236.19 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: What kind of interpretation deals with the clear allegories in the Tanakh themselves? For example, many names in the Tanakh are clearly derived from events in the story they are found in. Or many series of words are often found in poetical series in the Tanakh (such as khokhmah, binah, daat). Isn't there an article or area that deals with these Hebrew allegories which stand out clearly in the plain Hebrew text? Or study that lists them all?Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Adam - adamah; Khava; Av-raham; Yitzkhak etc. - what kind of allegory are these?

message: The examples of Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod in the "Examples" section are unsourced. To be specific, what is unsourced is not that the texts in question exist, but that they correspond to Pshat, Remez etc as claimed. Without support for this, they are not appropriate for this page. Ar2332 (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: The article says that Isaac Luria is the source of esoteric Kabbalah. This claim is brought without a source and seems wrong. Mainstream academic opinion dates Kabbalah in the sense of Jewish mysticism to 13th cen. Spain not 16th cen. Safed, and Luria explicitly bases himself  on the Zohar (13th century Spain). Sometimes Sefer Habahir is considered part of the "Kabbalistic" tradition (12th century Spain). I've never seen Luria presented as the origin of this tradition. Reader7466 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I think be WP:BOLD if you have a better articulation, because as you say it isn't sourced. Especially if you can provide sources. But I notice that the current version specifies "modern esoteric Kabbalah", not just "esoteric Kabbalah". GordonGlottal (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luria is not the source of contemporary Kabbalah