Book announcement: Jewish New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crumpy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crumpy

Guest
Huh? A Jewish New Testament?

Our Sunday Visitor newspaper had a feature Mar 4, 2012 about a newly published commentary on the New Testament, written completely by Jews titled “The Jewish Annotated New Testament.”

The value this is supposed to be (sincerely speaking) is to help the rest of us understand the Jewish nuances of the writings of the New Testament.

I have frequently made reference in various posts to The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford Univ. Press, one of whose co-editors is Marc Zvi Brettler, professor of Biblical Studies at Brandeis University. He is a co-editor of this volume as well.

The Jewish Study Bible not only includes modern Jewish commentary on the Old Testament (“The Jewish Bible”) but it has several hundred very useful pages of essays on Jewish understanding of the Bible, historical notes, Jewish philosophy, and quite a few other topics.

Somewhat in parallel, the current volume from the same Oxford Univ Press sounds like it has both commentary on the entire New Testament and also some essays, useful maps and other types of aids.

The OSV article is by Carl E. Olson who says the new volume is supposed to help us learn more about the Jewish context of the first century,Jewish understanding of Jesus and the parables, etc. But, it does this “without glossing over or ignoring the significant differences between Jewish and Christian beliefs” (says the OSV article).

"One of the more provocative and challenging essays is…‘Bearing False Witness: Common errors made about early Judaism’ examining 10 areas in which 'anti-Jewish stereotypes remain in some Christian preaching and teaching. ’ "

here’s the link to a commercial description of the new book
amazon.com/The-Jewish-Annotated-New-Testament/dp/0195297709/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331696289&sr=1-2
 
The only real source for first century A.D. Judaism is Philo, Josephus, and the NT.

Sounds like they throw in a lot of Talmudic stuff, none of which can be pinned directly to Jesus’ era.

And translational interpretations are always contentious.

I am not sure this is worth anyone’s time.
 
steve53 said:
The only real source for first century A.D. Judaism is Philo, Josephus, and the NT.

Sounds like they throw in a lot of Talmudic stuff, none of which can be pinned directly to Jesus’ era.

And translational interpretations are always contentious.

I am not sure this is worth anyone’s time.
Click to expand...
I’m of a more slightly lenient disposition than Steve: while I agree that our main literary sources for Jewish culture and religion during the 1st century are the New Testament, Philo and Josephus (coupled with archaeological evidence, which is not as tapped as often as the written evidence are), and while the use of the Mishnah and Talmud as sources for Second Temple Judaism is somewhat contentious, nevertheless I won’t go so far as to say that “none” of the Talmudic stuff “can be pinned directly to Jesus’ era.” Sure, editorial redaction and the passage of time has reshaped the stories and statements within the Mishnah and Talmud, but still, I don’t think it is unlikely that it contains some grain of historical fact, however small that may turn out to be.

As for the translation: all I’m hoping for is that it does not turn out to be a clone of the so-called Sacred Name Bibles - which for some reason renders Jesus’ name into its Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent but otherwise keeps the names of other NT characters as they are. 🤷
 
Philo was very allegorical in his interpretation of holy scriptures, though there is some intersection with the apostle Paul and the early church. Yes, Josephus is valuable, since he was a Levite priest of the same era.

It is an injustice to the original poster to treat his desire for us to have a better understanding of the Jewish roots of our faith by dismissing his resource.

There were interpretations, and commentaries of the Tanach in the days of Jesus also. Certainly, Hannukuh is not in the Torah, but Jesus was in Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. Many of the washings and restrictions that had been added to the Torah were already in place in the days of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Jewish religious leaders that Jesus Christ interacted with were not Karaites.

God’s peace to all.
 
mercytruth said:
Philo was very allegorical in his interpretation of holy scriptures, though there is some intersection with the apostle Paul and the early church. Yes, Josephus is valuable, since he was a Levite priest of the same era.

It is an injustice to the original poster to treat his desire for us to have a better understanding of the Jewish roots of our faith by dismissing his resource.

There were interpretations, and commentaries of the Tanach in the days of Jesus also. Certainly, Hannukuh is not in the Torah, but Jesus was in Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. Many of the washings and restrictions that had been added to the Torah were already in place in the days of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Jewish religious leaders that Jesus Christ interacted with were not Karaites.

God’s peace to all.
Click to expand...
I’m not dismissing Crumpy here, just to make that clear. Note what I’ve written in my reply: I’m a bit uncomfortable about uncritical use of the later Mishnah and Talmud for 1st century Judaism (or Judaisms), but I am of the opinion that there are at least some bits and pieces of information that may well date back to the Second Temple period beneath the layers of editorial redaction.
 
Patrick,

I was not referring to you. Sometimes in our own particular form of zeal, we become nearly blind to another’s perspective, (I have done this all too often), and so it is with the first response.

In God’s peace.
 
I think that sounds like it could be very interesting. I’ll be taking a look. Thanks for letting us know about this, Crumpy.
 
patrick457 said:
I’m not dismissing Crumpy here, just to make that clear. Note what I’ve written in my reply: I’m a bit uncomfortable about uncritical use of the later Mishnah and Talmud for 1st century Judaism (or Judaisms), but I am of the opinion that there are at least some bits and pieces of information that may well date back to the Second Temple period beneath the layers of editorial redaction.
Click to expand...
But I think the problem is that knowing which bits and pieces might relate to the Second Temple period is very, very difficult to discern. I haven’t yet read this book, but the past work of at least one of the editors (A.J. Levine) IMO tends to be in the camp that is too facile about connections between the N.T. and the Talmud. So I guess I’m skeptical.

You might enjoy the book The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Brill, 2009).
 
I have ordered a copy of the book that I described in the OP.

I have no illusions about the limitations and biases in modern Jewish commentary. I was just this evening re-reading the introductions to the document called “the interpretation of the Bible in the Church” prepared by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and published back in 1993 in English by St. Paul Books.

The general perspective of Pope John Paull II and Cardinal Ratzinger at that time was, in very loose terms of course, the more the merrier. Let’s hear what people have to say and deal with it. That’s pretty much how I look at it.

I was also today re-reading the second chapter of the gospel of St. Luke, which records that Simeon and Anna both had the ability to recognize that Jesus was the Christ, “the consolation of Israel.” In Simeon’s case, the gospel says that he had special insight given by the Holy Spirit that he would live long enough to see the Messiah. So, I can’t say that Jesus’ identity should have been known or knowable to all Jews at the time of Christ.

I don’t have to, because St. Paul seems to say that already in the second chapter of Romans, not to exclude that Jesus said the same thing, for example, that the Jews should have been able to recognize him by their familiarity with ‘the writings of Moses.’

Truthfully, I cannot “see Jesus” in the writings of Moses myself. I guess I’d need help seeing this. One comment I read recently in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture – Book of Romans vol VI was that Jesus was the perfectd Jew – he was the only Jew to have actually fulfilled “the law of Moses.” But, even then, I have to take somebody’s word on that. I couldn’t write an essay or paper to lay that out.
 
Should a Catholic be a little offended that Jewish Scholars are defining the New Testament in light of the Talmud?

Or should they turn the other cheek?
 
There is not one Jewish approach to the interpretation of the NT. There is the Orthodox, the Karaite, the Reform, the Conservative, the historical, the intellectual and even the gnostic. Knowing which perspective(s) and biases are given will be to one’s advantage. We know the same occurs among ‘Christian’ approaches, whether it be Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, historical, intellectual, or gnostic scholars. (I mention the gnostic, because it seems to have never relinquished its insertion into the debate over the last 2,000 years).

Yes, there are certain passages within the NT that are a thorn to most Jewish scholars, where they tend to think that there is a bias against the Jews depicted in the NT.

If one can work around that perception, one will probably learn something from their contributions. I found that Jewish historians are usually some of the best from the standpoint of integrity. I have also read Jewish explanations of Christianity that are better comprehended than many of those written by Christian scholars. God has given them gifts, and He has not abrogated those gifts.

I think the Dialogue between Justin Martyr the Christian from Samaria (who quotes only from the Tanach), and Trypho the Jew, (just after the defeat of Bar Kochba) is very informative from not only an historical viewpoint, but also a scriptural/theological viewpoint of early Chrisitanity, and also of Judaism at the turn of the 2nd century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top