I don't think the New Testament should be read as slandering the ethics of the Pharisees. But there are three main reasons why the Pharisees do not have an overall positive portrayal in the New Testament.
Morality and ethics can't save
The Pharisees were a movement of devout lay Jews. Along with many other movements within Judaism, they 'fenced the law', ...
According to rabbinic sources, women, children, and slaves, are not required to fulfill any commandment which is classified as a "מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא" (mitzvat asei shehazman gerama), a positive commandment dependent on time:
וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה אנשים חיבין ונשים פטורות, וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמה אחד אנשים ואחד נשים חיבין. (Mishna Kiddushin 1:...
There are many indispensable tools in linguistic translation, but two of the more important in Hebrew translation are Lexicons and the Septuagint.
Lexicons are important because, as wikipedia says
Linguistic theories generally regard human languages as consisting of two parts: a lexicon, essentially a catalogue of a language's words (its wordstock); and a ...
There is only one clue, that I can think of, as to what Jesus may have discussed at the age of twelve. Matthew recounts the following conversation of the adult Jesus with Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-45 :
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, ...
The LXX transliterates the Hebrew עִמָּנוּ אֵל in Isaiah 7:14 into Greek as Εμμανουηλ, but in Isaiah 8:8, it translates it as μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ θεός (“God [is] with us”).
The Greek word Εμμανουηλ would be transliterated into English as “Emmanuel.”
if you don't consider the fact that it is omitted from an entire Parsha, the question seems to be obtuse. As N.Ish pointed out, the name Moses is omitted in 5 complete chapters. So this question is really based on the way the Rabbis decided to divide the five books of the Torah into smaller portions or Parshiyot. Furthermore, this question pertains to the ...
A Fundamental Flaw
I believe there is a fundamental flaw in your assumption behind the question itself. Namely (emphasis added):
If their approach was the same I assume they would come to the same
theological conclusions ... there must be a difference in the methodology
and so you ask the question (emphasis added):
What are the characteristic ...
To put your hermeneutical fears to rest, the Hebrew says ...
להביא את ושתי המלכה
to usher-to-come Vashti the queen
before the king
in/with crown of the kingdom
להראות העמים והשרים
to show to the people and the leaders
כי טובה מראה היא
that good looking was she
I can't find any verse in the Bible that ...
The nineteenth century commentary by Charles Ellicott (editor) with R. Payne Smith writing the book of Genesis takes this position as it applies to Genesis 35:28-29. The name of the commentary set is An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers. as It is old there are a number of websites that have it as HTML or you can go to Google books and search for ...
I am not certain that Exodus 34:27 either confirms or refutes the existence of an Oral Law. Most of the arguments for the existence of an Oral Law which I have seen generally focus on written laws which would make no sense without an interpretation not present in the actual written text. It is therefore inferred that there must have always been an Oral Law ...
The reality is that we do not know what was said because the text does not say. We can "infer" that the Jewsish law may have been discussed and its application to life since this was usually the major activity of rabbis.
Also notice (vs46) Jesus was a good listener and ask them questions. The questiions must have been good because at (vs47) the Jews were ...
There are many ways "in the past" was expressed in the Tanakh, but טֶ֫רֶם is not one of them.
מִתְּמֹ֥ל שִׁלְשֹֽׁם / מִתְּמֹ֥ול שִׁלְשֹֽׁום - "in the past," "for a long time" (the most common in the MT Tanakh)
בָּרִאשֹׁונָֽה - "at first," "in the past"
מֵאָֽז - "in the past," "since"
In Psalm 139:11-12 verses be interpreted to have multiple meanings, and possibly even overlapping meanings
The writer of Psalm 139 is David. He is not taking on the role of victim or villain of/in darkness.
To better understand what David is saying we must look at the context of his words. The article "Jehovah Knows Us Well!" in the Watchtower ...
David's Ps 139 is one of the most sublime of his hymns of praise to the LORD. In it, David emphasizes the central aspects of the LORD's divinity:
V1-6 - the LORD's omniscience
V7-12 - the LORD's omnipresence
V13-16 - the LORD's creativity
V17, 18 - the LORD's guidance and personal interest in David (and by extension, all people)
V19-22 - the LORD's ...
Several bible commentators, including Rashi, explain that אֶעֱנֶה is referring to study. (I believe this is related to the word עונה-season/time - meaning studying and reviewing cyclically.)
Before I studied your laws, I erred. Now [that I have studied] I keep your laws.
Radak defines אֶעֱנֶה as submissiveness, from the root of כנע
Before I humbled ...
The BSB gives the best sense of Ps 119:67:
Before I was afflicted, I went astray; but now I keep Your word.
Note the position of the comma - the sense appears to be that the Psalmist went astray and affliction brought him back to God. That is, the author is thankful for the affliction which turned his mind to heavenly and spiritual things and made him ...
Ezekiel 37 is a vision concerning the resurrection and in-gathering of the scattered northern tribes of Israel in the last days, in the time of the messiah aka "the millennium". In the vision, "David" refers to Israel's anointed son of David, aka "the Messiah" ("messiah" translates the Hebrew for "anointed [one]" or "[the one] smeared with oil", referring to ...
A verse that comes near to speaking of smooth skin is this:
And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and
upon the smooth of his neck: (Genesis 27:16, KJV)
In this verse, "skins" is from עוֹר (H5785: `owr) and "smooth" is from חֶלְקָה (H2513: chelqah). Neither of these words is much similar to the "pleasure&...
"Smooth skin" is not a mainstream translation in either Judaism or Christianity, but rather a midrashic gloss. The issue here is we have a hapax legomenom so this creates some wiggle room, especially when it comes to euphemisms for things like menstruation, sexual desire, etc.
First, here are some mainstream translations from Jewish, Protestant, ...
The word we are discussing is עֶדְנָה. There is no difference in the Hebrew words. If you want an understanding of how it is translated as "pleasure" Dottard explained this translation. There are also Jewish translations which prefer this explanation. I will focus on Rashi's translation.
Rashi gets this translation from translating the word as ...
In Gen 18:12 the operative word is עֵדֶן (eden) which occurs 5 times in the OT: Gen 18:12, 2 Sam 1:24, Ps 36:8, Jer 51:34, Amos 1:5, all with the idea of delight or pleasure. The meaning is clear from BDB:
I. [עֵ֫דֶן] noun [masculine] luxury, dainty, delight; — plural
absolute עֲדָנִים luxuries 2 Samuel 1:24 Si versa l. (read
perhapsסְדִינִים [see סָדִין] ...
The fact that they were amazed and not upset, which they were later on, points toward that they thought Jesus was very mature for his young age, bringing up subjects that only Rabbis might venture into.
In my opinion this verse is not out of place at all - this verse come to show us why God punished them and not Moses.
By the way it's not written in the bible that Moses wrote those books* :
"...The books do not name any author, as authorship was not considered important by the society that produced them, and it was only after Jews came into intense ...