bearing false witness COMMON ERRORS MADE ABOUT EARLY JUDAISM

Amy-Jill Levine might be raised by a Jewish Board of Deputies or the Anti- There are numerous Church guidelines on how to present Defamation League—is not part of the culture. Jews and Judaism (e.g., Vatican Commission for Religious Fourth, biblical studies does, appropriately, speak to Relations with the Jews, “Notes on the Correct Way to contemporary issues. In the effort to deploy the biblical Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Cateche- text for purposes of liberation, interpreters insensitive to sis in the Roman Catholic Church” [1985]; National Con- the issue of anti-Jewish teaching sometimes present Jesus ference of Catholic Bishops, “God’s Mercy Endures For- as the liberator from his social context, namely Judaism, ever: Guidelines on the Presentation of Jews and Judaism which they depict as analogous to present-day social ills. in Catholic Preaching” [1988]; General Convention of the The motivations of such politicized readings are profound Episcopal Church, “Guidelines for Christian-Jewish Rela- and laudable: social justice, alleviation of poverty, and tions” [1988]; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, cessation of ethnic strife, and the like; the real difficul- “Guidelines for Lutheran-Jewish Relations” [1988]). How- ties facing these interpreters must be acknowledged. ever, out of ignorance many pastors and religious educa- However the means by which their argument is made are tors strip Jesus from his Jewish context and depict that sometimes unintentionally anti-Jewish. context in false and noxious stereotypes. This volume Fi/h, and perhaps most pernicious, the problem of represents an effort to redress this significant problem. ahistorical, anti-Jewish interpretation is not always ac- There are five major reasons for this problem. First, knowledged. Fortunately, most ministers and religious most Christian seminaries and divinity schools do not educators take care in addressing the obviously difficult offer detailed education about Judaism, whether at the passages (e.g., the “blood cry” of Mt 27.25 that depicts time of Jesus or subsequently. The Association of Theo- “the people as a whole” [Gk pas ho laos] saying, “His logical Schools in the United States and Canada, the ac- blood be on us and on our children!”; Jn 8.44a, where crediting organization for these institutions, does not Jesus accuses the “Jews”: “You are from your father the as of 2011 recommend that candidates studying for the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires”). But Christian ministry receive formal instruction in how to problems enter when homilists or teachers do not know avoid anti-Jewish preaching and teaching. Jewish history or theology and out of ignorance con- Second, whereas a number of churches have guide- struct a negative Judaism over and against which they lines on the presentation of Jews and Judaism, not all position Jesus, or when they presume that Jesus’ numer- clergy know the guidelines. Even clergy who receive ous insightful and inspirational comments are original to some education about Judaism need refresher courses: him rather than part of his Jewish identity. people forget what they have learned in graduate and Anti-Jewish stereotypes remain in some Christian professional schools, and these understandings change preaching and teaching in the following ten areas. (For as research progresses. But too few church bodies spon- additional details, see annotations to the NT passages sor continuing education programs on Judaism, on Jew- that this essay references.) ish-Christian relations, and specifically on anti-Jewish First, as part of a broader theological view that con- biblical interpretation, and too few clergy a.end the pro- trasts Jewish “law” with Christian “grace,” some Chris- grams that are offered. tians may believe that the Law (Torah) is impossible to Third, as church demographics shi/ increasingly to follow, “a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have Asia and Africa, new forms of anti-Jewish biblical inter- been able to bear” (Acts 15.10), as opposed to Jesus’ “easy pretations develop. Christians from these areas lack direct yoke” (see Mt 11.29–30). In actuality, Jews, then and now, memory of the Shoah, the Holocaust, and so may be less did not find Torah observance any more burdensome sensitized to the dangers of detaching of Jesus from his than citizens in most countries find their country’s laws Jewish tradition. Any negative stereotype flourishes more today. As Deut 30.11a states, “surely, this commandment easily when there are no personal contacts to combat it, that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you.” when there is limited access to Jews and Jewish resources, Furthermore, modern states have more laws than there and when the challenge to anti-Jewish teaching—such as are in all the ancient Jewish sources combined. In fact, Copyright © 2011. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law. essays | 501 EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/10/2017 8:40 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 477135 ; Levine, Amy-Jill, Brettler, Marc Zvi.; The Jewish Annotated New Testament Account: s8356098 common errors made about early judaism

Jesus sometimes makes observance more stringent: To- reasons: it leads listeners to expect to hear “Israelite,” the rah forbids murder (Ex 20.13; Deut 5.17), but Jesus forbids typical third member of the priest-Levite-Israelite trio, anger (Mt 5.22); Torah forbids adultery (Ex 20.14; Deut and thus listeners are shocked again when the third per- 5.18), and Jesus expands the definition of adultery to en- son is revealed to be a Samaritan. compass both lust (Mt 5.28) and remarriage a!er divorce Similarly, many sermons claim, incorrectly, that by (Mt 19.9; Mk 10.11–12; Lk 16.18). touching a woman suffering from hemorrhages (Mt 9.20– Jesus himself was halakhically obedient: he wears 22; Mk 5.25–34; Lk 8.43–48) and a corpse (Mt 9.23–26; Mk fringes (tzitzit—see Num 15.38–39; Deut 22.12) to remind 5.35–43; Lk 8.49–56), Jesus violates purity laws or social him of the Torah (Mt 9.20; Lk 8.44; Mt 14.36; Mk 6.56); taboos. First, Jesus does not touch the woman; she touch- he honors the Sabbath and keeps it holy; he argues with es him. Second, hands do not convey menstrual impurity. fellow Jews about appropriate observance (one does not The point of the healing is that Jesus restores a woman debate something in which one has no investment). It is to health (and to ritual purity), not that impurity, which from Torah that he takes his “Great Commandment” (Mt is a natural part of the world-order, is evil. Regarding the 22.36–40): love of God (Deut 6.5) and love of neighbor corpse: again, no law forbids touching a corpse; although (Lev 18.19). corpses convey serious ritual impurity, being in a ritu- A second misconception, and correlate to the first, ally impure state is not prohibited unless one is going to is the view that Jews follow Torah in order to earn God’s the Temple. In fact, a"ending to a corpse is an important love or a place in heaven. Therefore, Judaism is a religion mitzvah (commandment) in the book of Tobit (2.1–7), in of “works righteousness” rather than of grace. This view rabbinic literature, and in the New Testament, as we see, fails to observe that the election of Israel is based on for example, when the disciples of John the Baptist claim grace, not merit or works. Jews do not follow Torah in their teacher’s body (Mk 6.29; Mt 14.12), when Joseph of order to “earn” divine love or salvation; the Mishnah (m. Arimathea claims Jesus’ body (Mk 15.43–46), and when Sanh. 10.1) states that “all Israel has a share in the world to the women visit the tomb (Mk 16.1; Lk 24.1). come”—it is part of the covenant. Divine love is already Women who have just given birth are ritually impure, present; it is not earned. Some texts contemporaneous but Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and Mary, with the New Testament (e.g., the Dead Sea Scroll text the mother of Jesus, were not marginalized or demeaned 4QMMT) can be read to suggest a works-righteousness following parturition. Ritual purity along with Sabbath model, but this is by no means the majority view, at least observance, avoiding certain foods such as pork, mak- as can be determined by the literature of the period. ing sure meat was slaughtered in an appropriate manner, A third misconception connected to Torah is the view and tithing certain agricultural products also helped Jews that purity laws were both burdensome and unjust. For resist assimilation, served as a sign of Jewish identity, example, numerous commentators explain that the priest helped support the poor, and otherwise reminded them and the Levite of the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk that they were Israel, the covenant community. For ad- 10.30–37) bypass a wounded traveler because they are ditional details, see The “Law,” p. 515. commanded by Jewish law to avoid touching a corpse. The fourth misconception is the view that early Juda- The parable, however, does not give this as the rationale ism was so misogynistic that it made the Taliban look pro- for the priest and the Levite’s behavior. Indeed, it could gressive by comparison, and that Jesus liberated women not have been the rationale, since the priest is “going from this oppressive system. For example, numerous com- down” from Jerusalem (Lk 10.31), not “up” to it, where pu- mentators express surprise that Jesus would have permit- rity in the Temple would have been an issue. Although Lev. ted Mary to sit at his feet (Lk 10.38–42), because “rabbis” 21.1–2 forbids priests from contact with corpses save for were forbidden to talk to women. This idea of a “feminist” those of near relatives, no such injunction applies to the Jesus amid a retrograde Judaism serves several expedient Levites. In rabbinic literature, the responsibility to save a purposes. Since Jesus is not proactive concerning women life supersedes other commandments (e.g., b. Yoma 846). (e.g., no women are appointed among the twelve apos- Next, Samaritans had the same purity laws as did Jews. tles; no women are explicitly mentioned as being present Josephus (Ag. Ap. 2.30.211) insists that Jews are “not to let at the Transfiguration, the Last Supper, or Gethsemane), anyone lie unburied; the Mishnah (m. Naz. 7.1) mandates then if Jewish women could be depicted as no be"er than that even a high priest must assure an una"ended corpse property, any interaction Jesus had with a woman would receives proper burial. Consequently, Jews would have be seen as progressive. The case for describing women expected the priest and Levite to provide care, and part as oppressed by Judaism was then made by very selec- of the shock of the parable is that they do not. The par- tive citations of rabbinic statements, ignoring significant able mentions priest and Levite for rhetorical, not legal counterexamples (e.g., Beruriah, the well-educated wife Copyright © 2011. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 502 | essays EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/10/2017 8:40 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 477135 ; Levine, Amy-Jill, Brettler, Marc Zvi.; The Jewish Annotated New Testament Account: s8356098 common errors made about early judaism

of Rabbi Meir, whose legal rulings are authoritative), and they “cast out” of anything: to the contrary, Luke 18.10 ignoring the role of patrons and guests in private homes. locates a “tax collector” and “sinner” in the Jerusalem The New Testament, as well as other Jewish litera- Temple. Second, the majority of people suffering from ture of the period, from the deuterocanonical texts to diseases in the Gospels are part of larger familial or social Josephus and Philo to inscriptional evidence to early groups. Women are not cast out or marginal, and chil- rabbinic sources, tells us that Jewish women owned dren are so loved that their parents and care-givers bring their own homes (see Lk 10.38 [Martha]; Acts 12.12 [Mary them to Jesus for a blessing. Nor are Gentiles “cast out”; the mother of John called Mark]); served as patrons (Lk Luke reports that a Gentile centurion built a synagogue 8.1–3); appeared in the Temple (which had a dedicated in Capernaum, and depicts the Jewish elders as pleading “Court of the Women”) and in synagogues; had use of on his behalf to Jesus (Lk 7.1–10). Gentiles were welcome their own property (from the poor widow who puts her in the Jerusalem Temple and in synagogues. Judaism of coins in the Temple treasury [Mk 12.42; Lk 21.2] to the this period was not an egalitarian or universalist utopia, rich woman who anoints Jesus, whether on the head [Mt but nor was it in general a system that “cast out” wom- 26.6–13 || Mk 14.3–9] or on his feet [Lk 7.36–50; John 12.1– en, children, the poor and sick, and so on. It is therefore 3]); had freedom of travel (as with the women from Gali- important that pastors and teachers be more cautious lee who accompany Jesus to Judea); appear in public; and when they use terms like “marginal” and “outcast.” so on. Clearly it was not because of Jewish oppression The seventh misconception is the view that all Jews that women joined Jesus. Perhaps some women outside wanted a militant messiah and therefore rejected Jesus of marital situations (widows, single women, divorced because he proclaimed love of enemies. First-century women) were particularly a!racted to Jesus’ movement Judaism had no single messianic blueprint. Some Jews given its possible focus on celibacy (see Mt 19.12), non- expected a priestly messiah, others a shepherd, still oth- privileging of child-bearing (Lk 11.27–28), and alternative ers thought John the Baptist was the messiah. And still family structures (see Mt 12.50 || Mk 3.35). others had no such expectations. Missing from this view The fi"h misconception, related to the fourth, is that of the pacifistic Jesus vs. militant Judaism is also contrary Jesus forbids divorce in order to protect women, because evidence from the New Testament. For example, Jesus’ “the rabbis” stated that men would divorce their wives followers are armed, as we see in the a!empts to prevent for the flimsiest of reasons (see m. Git.). This view fails his arrest in Gethsemane. Jesus instructs his disciples, to note that in addition to some liberal rabbinic divorce “The one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a comments, we find much more stringent ones that re- bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak strict divorce to cases of adultery; this view also fails to and buy one” (Lk 22.36b) and disciples respond: “Lord, note that the Jewish wife had a marriage contract (Heb look, here are two swords” (22.38). ketubah) that protected her financially in case of divorce. Eighth is the view that for early Judaism, God had Jesus’ concern is not the protection of women, but theo- become a transcendent, distant king, and that Jesus in- logical. Mark 10.6–9 explains: “From the beginning of vented the idea of a heavenly “father”; connected to this creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this rea- view is the still-heard claim that when Jesus addressed son a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined God as “abba” (Mk 14.36; see also Rom 8.15; Gal 4.6) that to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they he used an intimate term meaning “daddy” that would are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has have been offensive to his fellow Jews. These claims miss joined together, let no one separate.” the numerous biblical and postbiblical uses of “father” The sixth problem is a ma!er substantially of vague for the divine, including Ps 68.5 [Heb v. 6]; 89.26 [Heb v. rhetoric: the claim that Jesus ministers to the “outcasts” 27]; Isa 64.8; Jer 31.9; Ant. 7.380, etc.; 1QH; b. Ta’an. 23b (on and “marginals.” Many pastors and teachers do not ex- the grandson of oni the Circle Drawer); and b. Ta’an. 25b plain: Cast out by whom? Cast out from what? Marginal (avinu malkeinu—“our father our king”). to what? For example, that Jesus eats with “sinners and Ninth is the insistence that Jesus objected to the tax collectors” (e.g., Mk 2.16) is seen as an example of his “temple domination system” that overtaxed the popu- ministering to the “cast out.” Groups ranging from the lation, forced upon them oppressive purity laws (see sick, the women, and the Gentiles (such as centurions) above), and functioned as an elitist institution in cooper- to children and the poor are seen as “marginal.” This is ation with Rome. Thus we have the common stereotype historically inaccurate. Sinners and tax collectors are that the “money changers” were overcharging pilgrims. not “cast out”; rather, they are people who violate the Jesus never makes this charge, although there are rabbin- welfare of the community and who have deliberately ic notices that the high priests would sometimes take the removed themselves from the common good. Nor are tithes due to the poorer priests. Nor have we evidence Copyright © 2011. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law. essays | 503 EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/10/2017 8:40 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 477135 ; Levine, Amy-Jill, Brettler, Marc Zvi.; The Jewish Annotated New Testament Account: s8356098 the nt between the hb and rabbinic literature

that the Temple oppressed the peasants or overtaxed claim is false, as the Gospel of Luke itself indicates (see Lk them. The vast majority of the Jewish people loved the 7.1–10), as the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple proves, Temple, visited it on pilgrimage festivals, protected it and as the presence of God-fearers and the conversion from Roman profanation, and mourned its destruction. of pagans to Judaism in the first century all indicate. Yes, According to the book of Acts, Jesus’ followers, including some Jews were narrow (the Qumran scroll 1QM, which Paul, continued to worship there. When in the first revolt divides the world into the “Sons of Light” and the “Sons of against Rome, the Zealot factions gained control of Jeru- Darkness” is hardly a model of ecumenical and interfaith salem, they did burn the Temple debt records, but they alliance); others were not. Universalism has important also appointed their own high priest. To some extent, the precedents in the Hebrew Bible, especially in texts de- idea of the temple domination system stems from Jesus’ scribing the ideal future (“the messianic age”; see, e.g., Isa comment about the “den of robbers” (Mt 21.13) ; however, 2.1–4), and such ideas continued in rabbinic texts as well. “den of robbers” is a quotation from the Hebrew Bible, These common stereotypes, and there are others, can from Jer 7.11, and it refers not to where people steal but be addressed by reading and teaching the entire New where thieves go to feel safe. Testament carefully within its context. The commentar- Tenth is the claim that early Judaism was narrow, clan- ies and essays in this volume should provide for readers nish, and exclusivistic and that Jesus invented universal- not only a greater appreciation for the Scriptures of the ism. For example, in Acts 10.28a, Peter states, “it is unlaw- Christian Church but should also prevent the false teach- ful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile.” The ing that deforms the “good news” of Jesus.

THE NEW TESTAMENT BETWEEN THE HEBREW BIBLE (TANAKH) AND RABBINIC LITERATURE

Marc Zvi Bre!ler the magis’ question—“Where is the child who has been It is impossible to read the New Testament aptly without born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its ris- knowledge of the Jewish Bible, the Tanakh (an acronym ing, and have come to pay him homage”—likely alludes for Torah, Nevi’im [Prophets], and Ketuvim [Writings], to Numbers 24.17, “a star shall come out of Jacob, and a what the church calls the “Old Testament,” and what scepter shall rise out of Israel.” is sometimes called the “Hebrew Bible”). Most of the The New Testament authors also find significant con- books that comprise the New Testament presume the tinuity between the Scriptures of Israel and the story of background of that collection of writings—usually in its Jesus: Jesus is portrayed as a new Moses in Ma!hew 2–7 Greek translation, the Septuagint (see “The Septuagint,” (both savior figures are rescued when children around p. 562); they quote it, allude to it, use its thought forms them are slaughtered by royal decree; both descend to and concepts, and in general rely upon it as a source of Egypt, cross water, endure temptation in the wilderness, ideas, history, and religious meaning. ascend a mountain, and deliver a law); the depiction of But such appreciation of the Hebrew Bible is not the crucified Jesus as an offering whose blood atones enough for a full understanding of how the New Testa- (Heb 9.11–28; cf. Mk 10.45) evokes the Priestly writings ment discerns this earlier biblical material. Informed (Lev 16.1–19; Num 19.1–10). Gospel accounts, such as the reading of the New Testament must also take account multiplication of food (e.g., Mk 6.30–44) or bringing a of the development of Jewish thought, including Jew- child back to life (Mk 5.22–24,35–43) recall the prophetic ish biblical interpretation, through the time of Jesus of stories of Elijah (see 1 Kings 17.8–16,17–24); similar multi- Nazareth and his early followers. Of the approximately plication of food, and cleansing from leprosy (Mk 1.40– 8,000 verses in the New Testament, more than 250 quote 42) bring to mind those of Elisha (2 Kings 4.1–7; 5.1–19). the Tanakh, and perhaps twice as many directly allude (To a lesser extent, such miracle stories are found about to it; if verses with more distant allusions are included, a small number of rabbinic sages, such as oni the Circle the number is far greater. For example, in Ma!hew 2.2, Drawer [see b. Ta’an. 19a]; see “Jewish Miracle Workers,” Copyright © 2011. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 504 | essays EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/10/2017 8:40 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 477135 ; Levine, Amy-Jill, Brettler, Marc Zvi.; The Jewish Annotated New Testament Account: s8356098 the nt between the hb and rabbinic literature

p. 536). A wide variety of other stories, beginning with the directly upon the Tanakh but upon Hellenistic Jewish lit- creation narratives, are recalled (see e.g., 1 Tim 2.13). The erature. For example, the concept of the martyr, put to New Testament frequently quotes or alludes to Israel’s death by the state, whose sacrifice has salvific meaning laws (e.g., Lev 19.18 and Deut 6.5 in Lk 10.25–28, where for fellow Jews, begins to be developed in the apocryphal Jesus elicits the references from a lawyer; in Mk 12.28–31 book 2 Maccabees (a book in the Roman Catholic and Or- and Mt 13.16–17, Jesus quotes the verses himself). The thodox but not the Protestant versions of the Old Testa- Christian texts frequently appeal to the book of Psalms, ment). The shi# of Satan from a member of the heavenly and sometimes regard them as prophecies (e.g., Ps 16.8–11 court to a personification of evil likewise developed in in Acts 2.25–28; Ps 2.7; 104.4; 45.6–7; 102.25–27; 110.1 in this milieu. Heb 1.5,7,8,10–12,13); much of the description of Jesus’ There is also, of course, material in the New Testa- crucifixion, especially as presented in the Gospels of ment that is not anticipated in the Tanakh; the best Ma!hew and Mark, draws upon Psalm 22. Some of Jesus’ examples of this are the epistles, le!ers wri!en to in- aphorisms (e.g., Mt 6.27,34) are continuous with the Isra- dividuals or to congregations. Nor does the Tanakh of- elite wisdom tradition in Proverbs 10–31, and the Prologue fer “Gospels” in the sense of a focused biography of an to the Gospel of John (1.1–5,10–18) is based on the idea of individual, although the stories of Moses and David, are wisdom personified at the beginning of Proverbs (1.19–20; developed in detail. Furthermore, the Hebrew materials 8.22–31). Revelation, the last book of the New Testament, tend to point out the flaws of even the principal figures depends on the similarly apocalyptic Daniel, to which it discussed; no figure in the Tanakh is depicted as perfect frequently alludes (compare e.g., Rev 2.18 with Dan 10.6); or sinless. it is by far the most allusive New Testament writing, with Much of what is new is found in the Jewish texts from hundreds of allusions to many books of the Tanakh, al- approximately the same period of the New Testament. though with no exact direct quotations. For example, the formula used to introduce many cita- Both the Tanakh and New Testament incorporate tions from the Scriptures of Israel in the New Testament multiple, contradictory traditions, as we see when the is “(as) it is wri!en” (e.g., Mk 1.2), like the rabbinic formula same story is narrated in Kings and Chronicles, or among kakatuv (see, e.g., the Aleinu prayer, where kakatuv intro- the four Gospels. This is very different from modern duces the citation of Deut 4.39). (This term is also used in books, which typically, especially when they deal with some the latest texts in the Hebrew Bible, such as Ezra 3.4, the past, take a single viewpoint. The variety of opinions which are closer in time to the NT.) There are also forms on crucial ideas in the Tanakh (Is God corporeal? Are peo- of argument well a!ested in rabbinic texts, such as the ple essentially good? Is there intergenerational punish- argument from the minor to the major, also known the qal ment?) anticipates the variety of ideas in the New Testa- vahomer (lit., “light and heavy”; see the seven principles ment (Is the new age imminent or has it been delayed? of Hillel, found at the beginning of the rabbinic midrash Should Jesus’ followers marry or live singly? Is Jesus an Sifra), found several times in the New Testament using incarnate divine being or an adopted son of God? Does the phrase “how much more so” (e.g., Mt 12.12). Rabbinic early Christianity mean to replace the law?). Both the readings of the biblical text are o#en fanciful and decon- Tanakh and the New Testament do not participate in the textualize the text from its original historical se!ing—a either/or world of the twenty-first century. feature of the New Testament as well. For example, Mat- And yet there is much in the New Testament that is thew 13.14–15 and its parallels quote Isaiah 6.9–10, which not anticipated in the Tanakh, such as the core idea of a in its original context is about Isaiah’s generation in the divine messiah who brings redemption by dying for Israel’s eighth century bce, yet the Gospels understand these sins. Some of these ideas exist separately in the Hebrew verses as being fulfilled in the period of Jesus. This is no Bible—a messiah (though that term is never used there different from the way similar prophetic texts were under- of the future ideal Davidic king), a future ideal king who stood by the rabbis and the Dead Sea Scrolls community has some supernatural or at least hyperbolically described as being fulfilled centuries a#er they were first recorded characteristics (see Isa 11.1–5), though he is never called (see esp. the pesher texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, or divine, and a suffering servant (see esp. Isa 53), though the R. Akiva’s understanding that Num 24.17 was fulfilled with identity of this servant is very unclear, and it is uncertain if Bar Kochba [see y. Ta’an. 4.8]). the Hebrew Bible intends an individual or a group, and if Reflecting on how rabbinic Judaism appropriates this servant lives in the past, present, or future. and interprets the Tanakh can also help readers under- Thus, some of what is new in the New Testament re- stand more deeply the relation between the New Tes- flects a bringing together of separate ideas found in the tament and the Tanakh. A Jewish reader might say the Tanakh. Some of the New Testament’s themes draw not suffering ser vant passage in Isaiah 53, emphasized by Copyright © 2011. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law. essays | 505 EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/10/2017 8:40 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 477135 ; Levine, Amy-Jill, Brettler, Marc Zvi.; The Jewish Annotated New Testament Account: s8356098 the nt between the hb and rabbinic literature

a variety of New Testament texts (see e.g., Mk 10.45 in God finds fault with them when he says: relation to Isa 53.12), is peripheral to the Tanakh, which “The days are surely coming, says the Lord, generally emphasizes personal responsibility rather when I will establish a new covenant with than vicarious punishment. Thus, the New Testament the house of Israel reading of this passage of the Tanakh could be seen as and with the house of Judah; a distortion. But in the same way, rabbinic Judaism does not like the covenant that I made with their not represent the Hebrew Bible in a proportionate fash- ancestors, ion, and it can emphasize relatively marginal passages. on the day when I took them by the hand to lead For example, the notion of “chastisement of love,” that them out of the land of Egypt; righteous people are punished as a sign of divine love for they did not continue in my covenant, and should accept this punishment with love, is found and so I had no concern for them, says the only rarely in the Tanakh (most clearly Prov 3.12). Yet Lord. within rabbinic Judaism, it becomes much more cen- This is the covenant that I will make with the tral, probably as a result of the Hadrianic persecutions house of Israel of 132–35 ce (the Bar Kochba revolt), in which many a&er those days, says the Lord: righteous Jews were killed while and for observing the I will put my laws in their minds, To r a h ( e . g . , b. Sanh. 101a). For both rabbinic Judaism and write them on their hearts, and the New Testament, the Tanakh should be seen as and I will be their God, a sourcebook, where the later traditions pick particular and they shall be my people. themes or ideas to emphasize and interpret, and conse- And they shall not teach one another quently de-emphasize others. or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ The rabbis and the New Testament authors do not for they shall all know me, interpret their respective texts (the Hebrew Bible for from the least of them to the greatest. the rabbis, the Septuagint, usually, for the NT authors) For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, in a straightforward fashion. The casual reader of the and I will remember their sins no more.” Tanakh would not imagine that the phrase “You shall In speaking of “a new covenant,” he has made the not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” (Ex 23.19; 34.26; Deut first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing 14.21) suggests that no milk and meat products may old will soon disappear. (Heb 8.6–13) be eaten or cooked together, as the rabbis adduced (b. Hul. 115b). Nor would the casual reader of Jeremiah as- The latest books of the Hebrew Bible, including Dan- sume that iel, are usually understood to have been wri'en in the second century bce, although biblical ideas continued to The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will flourish later, while the first rabbinic book, the Mishnah, make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the is dated to approximately 200 ce, although it incorpo- house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I rates earlier traditions. From a chronological perspective, made with their ancestors when I took them by the these two corpora—the Tanakh and rabbinic literature— hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a cov- form bookends around the New Testament and offer enant that they broke, though I was their husband, much context that clarifies its meaning. The New Testa- says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make ment is a Christian book—the final part of a Scripture with the house of Israel a&er those days, says the of a community that had come, by the time these books Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it were regarded as a distinct collection, to view itself as on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall separate from the Jewish community. Nevertheless, the be my people. (Jer 31.31–33) Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature, as well as the Jew- ish literature contemporaneous with the New Testament, refers to an entirely new revelation that replaces the old, offer an important context for any reader who is trying to as suggested in Hebrews: understand it. In turn, reading the New Testament pro- vides additional lenses by which we might understand But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, the lives, the ideas, and the practices of many Jews, both and to that degree he is the mediator of a be'er cov- those who chose to follow Jesus of Nazareth and those enant, which has been enacted through be'er prom- who chose the various other paths that comprised late ises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there Second Temple Judaism. In that sense, the New Testa- would have been no need to look for a second one. ment is very much part of Jewish history. Copyright © 2011. Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted Copyright © under U.S. or applicable copyright law. 506 | essays EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/10/2017 8:40 PM via EASTERN KENTUCKY UNIV AN: 477135 ; Levine, Amy-Jill, Brettler, Marc Zvi.; The Jewish Annotated New Testament Account: s8356098