.png)
In October of 2021, De Gruyter publishing released a new book entitled, Troubling Topics, Sacred Texts: Readings in Hebrew Bible, New Testament, and Qur’an, by Dr. Roberta Sterman Sabbath. This anthology explores how the sometimes veiled but eternally powerful polemics of the Abrahamic scriptures can serve as both the ultimate justification for cruelty or compassion.
What is Hagioprepēs?
To put it succinctly, Hagioprepēs is the act of rationalizing the sinful behaviors of culture heroes and saints in the Abrahamic Scriptures. In one chapter, Dr. Darren M. Slade identifies and coins (for the first time) an ancient hermeneutical practice common to Second Temple Jews and Christians, which has continued to be a shameful display of exegesis to the present day.
How Does Hagioprepēs Work?
In both Second Temple Judaism and the patristic era, there was a conceptual exegetical practice known as defectus litterae (“the missing literal sense”) that understood absurd, dubious, or scandalous biblical passages as signifying deeper spiritual truths. The hermeneutical goal was to develop an interpretation that was theoprepēs (God-befitting). In other words, ancient writers sought a biblical interpretation that would rationalize and justify God’s immoral behavior in order to maintain belief in a good and righteous deity.
However, there is another aspect of defectus litterae that patristic scholars have yet to classify. Coined here for the first time as hermeneutical hagioprepēs, or saint-befitting, many Jewish and patristic writers employed the same exegetical tactic to salvage the reputation of so-called saintly biblical characters. This stratagem allowed ancient interpreters to rationalize certain behavior in order to justify continued reverence for members of their own religious heritage.
The chapter first presents examples of ancient interpreters minimizing, sanitizing, or omitting the embarrassing and immoral behavior of biblical saints. It then offers post-hermeneutical examples of hagioprepēs being used to rationalize and justify the crimes of fellow religionists.
Brief Examples of Hagioprepēs
What is important to realize is that many Second Temple and New Testament writings parallel the laudatory biographies common in the Greco-Roman world. Known in classical rhetoric as encomium, these laudatory bios sought mainly to praise an individual’s righteous achievements. Naturally then, a person’s alleged sinfulness, or otherwise undignified behavior, were omitted or rationalized away. In line with this encomiastic tendency, the practice of minimizing immoral behavior eventually occurred in the Hebrew Bible itself. For example, the Chronicler (e.g. 2Chr 9:29–31) omitted any reference to King Solomon’s extreme licentiousness and eventual turning away from God (1Kgs 11). Likewise, David’s murderous agenda with Uriah (2Sam. 11) is completely absent from Chronicles. The logical inference is that even biblical writers engaged in selective encomium and, ultimately, hagioprepēs as a method for interpreting history.
Indeed, by the time much of the Jewish pseudepigraphal writings were in circulation, it had become customary to engage in hagioprepēs directly. For example, the Septuagint, Targum Neofiti, and the Testament of Issachar all recast Genesis 49:15 into claiming that Issachar, the fifth son of Jacob, was a willing farmer and student of Torah when, in fact, the original Hebrew depicts him as a meaningless slave. In another instance, Scripture reports that Moses’ brother, Aaron, helped orchestrate the construction and worship of a golden calf while Moses stood on Mount Sinai (Exod 32:1–6). This passage presented a problem for observant Second Temple Jews, who relied on Aaron’s descendants for the proper administration of the Jerusalem Temple. Thus, Pseudo-Philo (first century ce) sanitized Aaron’s actions by claiming he never participated in the golden calf’s construction or its worship. In fact, according to Pseudo-Philo, Aaron attempted to prevent the Israelites from sinning against God, but they refused to listen to him (Ps-Philo 12.2–3). Indeed, post-biblical and Septuagint versions of the Hebrew Bible, as distinct from the Masoretic tradition, occasionally redacted portions of Genesis to censor those portions of Scripture that portray the Patriarchs and Matriarchs as engaging in immorality.
The incident where Judah impregnated his daughter-in-law because he thought she was a prostitute and then, according to Genesis, sought the death penalty for her indiscretion (Gen. 38) is whitewashed in the Testament of Judah as being the result of having too much alcohol and Tamar dressing like a whore (T. Jud. 12.1–12). Tertullian and Cyprian (ca. 200–258) followed suit and blamed Tamar for the way she was dressed (Tert., Cult. fem. 2.12; Cypr. Test. 3.36). Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155–220) suggested that Judah did nothing wrong because he maintained his faith in God (Strom. 1.5). In an interesting twist, Philo actually claimed that it was not Judah who fornicated with and impregnated Tamar; rather, it was God himself who planted divine seed in her. Judah recognized the miracle and that is why he chose to protect her from capital punishment (Names 134–136). This rationalizing process was in keeping with other Jewish Hellenistic, as well as early Christian, texts that idealize the inherent righteousness of the Patriarchs without any scrutiny over their actual behavior.
The apostles of the New Testament are given a pass for many of their mistakes, as well. Case in point are the multiple instances where the Apostle Paul explicitly condoned slavery (Titus 2:9), used racial slurs (Titus 1:12–13; cf. Gal 3:1), denigrated women (1 Cor 14:33–35; 1Tim 2:12), condemned same-sex relations (1 Cor 6:9–10; 1Tim 1:9–10), and condemned Jews as the most sinful race of Christ-killers (1Thess 2:15–16; cf. Rom 10:21). Today, Pauline apologists often employ a trajectory hermeneutic where Scripture is said to contain the beginnings of a tolerant and egalitarian approach to life, such as the emancipation of slaves and women’s rights, though neither Paul nor other New Testament authors explicitly endorsed such ideas.
The New Testament continues the practice, especially with some of the more embarrassing moments in Jesus' ministry. As Dr. Slade' chapter reveals, the list of examples goes on ... and on ... and on in some of the most startling and shameful ways throughout Jewish and Christian history.
How Do I Read the Chapter?
This newly identified hermeneutical practice is available for those interested in learning more about how ancient and modern exegetes have rationalized away the crimes and atrocities of their fellow religionists.
