The critical importance of the Jewish religious oral tradition

 A classic example—often used in Jewish–Christian discussions—is Exodus 21:24:

“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

Here is one verse, read three fundamentally different ways, depending on the interpretive system.

---

1. Plain-text (outsider / text-only reading)

How it looks on the page

A straightforward reading suggests literal bodily retaliation.

If someone blinds another person, the punishment is blinding them in return.

Result

• Justice = physical retribution

• Law appears harsh and violent

• Often cited as evidence of “primitive” ethics

This is how:

• Many modern readers

• Many early Christians

• Many critics of the Bible
  read the verse without tradition.

---

2. Jewish oral-law reading (normative Jewish understanding)

Traditional interpretation

From at least the Second Temple period onward, Judaism understood this verse as:

Monetary compensation, not physical mutilation.

The offender pays damages equal to:

• Medical costs

• Loss of income

• Pain and suffering

• Permanent impairment

Key point

This meaning is not explicit in the text.

It comes from:

• Oral legal tradition

• Court practice

• Ethical reasoning embedded in Jewish law

By the time of the Mishnah:

• Literal retaliation was forbidden

• Courts never applied bodily harm

Result

• Justice = proportional compensation

• The verse becomes a principle, not a procedure

From a Jewish perspective:

The literal reading was never the law.

---

3. Christian theological reading (especially early Christianity)

How Christians typically read it

Jesus refers to this verse in Matthew 5:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye’… but I say to you, do not resist an evildoer.”

This creates the impression that:

• The Mosaic Law taught vengeance

• Jesus replaced it with mercy

Result

• The verse becomes a symbol of legalistic harshness

• Christianity is framed as moral advancement

Problem (from Jewish view)

Judaism already rejected literal retaliation.

So Christianity is:

• Reacting to a misunderstood version of the law

• Correcting a strawman interpretation

---

Side-by-side summary

Reader	Meaning of the verse
Text-only reader	Literal physical retaliation
Jewish oral tradition	Financial compensation
Christian theology	Old Law of vengeance, superseded by mercy

Same verse. Three meanings. Three religions.

---

Why this example matters

This shows concretely that:

• The Hebrew Bible is not self-interpreting

• Meaning depends on interpretive inheritance

• Christianity and Judaism diverged not just theologically, but hermeneutically

• Oral tradition does not “add” meaning — it determines it

A reader without that tradition will almost inevitably:

• Misread intent

• Misjudge ethics

• Create new doctrine

---

Bottom line

Scripture does not speak on its own.
It speaks through the community that learned how to hear it.