Monday, June 29, 2009
WHAT DID JESUS LIKE ABOUT BEING JEWISH?
Most scholars could not answer this question correctly. That's because most scholars never even think about it. I'll take it further: Most scholars could not even describe what it meant to be Jewish in the 1st century — that is, the sheer variety of this culture's aspects. The typical historical Jesus scholar reduces Jewish culture to Temple, rituals, and purity concerns. That is a trivialization of ancient Judaism.
There is no debate about the richness of Jewish culture in Jesus' time and there is no debate about how deeply immersed the historical Jesus was in all this. You cannot debate what has been erased from everyone's consciousness.
If all this sounds very negative, that is because it is negative, the state of affairs is negative. Historical Jesus scholarship is in a very backward state. Facts are irrelevant. The facts of Jewish history hardly exist. Only preconceptions about Jesus matter in this field.
I am not going to answer the question posed above in the title of this blog. The question alone — or rather, the complete lack of interest in this question — suffices to indict the disaster that is called historical Jesus studies. Just think about your own culture. What goes into it? What do you get out of it? Think about food, music, entertainment, humor, politics, education, stories, celebrities, values, work opportunities, customs, laws, family life, and more. These are the things that make up a culture — yours, that of Jesus, anyone's.
How much of any of these things comes up when scholars write about Jesus and his context? Very little. And often, even that little bit is wrong. What were some of Jesus' favorite things? No one ever thinks about this. No one debates it. We may not be able to answer it adequately (because so much of the historical record is incomplete on these details), but that does not mean we should not think about this question. It is very important to consider how a man embraced his own culture and what about it gave him deep pleasure.
Leon Zitzer
Most scholars could not answer this question correctly. That's because most scholars never even think about it. I'll take it further: Most scholars could not even describe what it meant to be Jewish in the 1st century — that is, the sheer variety of this culture's aspects. The typical historical Jesus scholar reduces Jewish culture to Temple, rituals, and purity concerns. That is a trivialization of ancient Judaism.
There is no debate about the richness of Jewish culture in Jesus' time and there is no debate about how deeply immersed the historical Jesus was in all this. You cannot debate what has been erased from everyone's consciousness.
If all this sounds very negative, that is because it is negative, the state of affairs is negative. Historical Jesus scholarship is in a very backward state. Facts are irrelevant. The facts of Jewish history hardly exist. Only preconceptions about Jesus matter in this field.
I am not going to answer the question posed above in the title of this blog. The question alone — or rather, the complete lack of interest in this question — suffices to indict the disaster that is called historical Jesus studies. Just think about your own culture. What goes into it? What do you get out of it? Think about food, music, entertainment, humor, politics, education, stories, celebrities, values, work opportunities, customs, laws, family life, and more. These are the things that make up a culture — yours, that of Jesus, anyone's.
How much of any of these things comes up when scholars write about Jesus and his context? Very little. And often, even that little bit is wrong. What were some of Jesus' favorite things? No one ever thinks about this. No one debates it. We may not be able to answer it adequately (because so much of the historical record is incomplete on these details), but that does not mean we should not think about this question. It is very important to consider how a man embraced his own culture and what about it gave him deep pleasure.
Leon Zitzer
Sunday, May 31, 2009
IS THE BIBLE THE ONE EXCEPTION TO OUR SEACRH FOR TRUTH?
Most of us would say we have a deep faith in the truth. We believe that the truth is good to know and that lies are harmful. We believe this in practically all areas of life from the personal to the political. We will fight for the truth — for our right to know it — and we harshly criticize anyone who tries to hide it from us and offer us a lie instead.
Occasionally, we make an exception to this general rule, but rarely. We want the truth even when it seems it won't do anyone any good. Think of when a soldier is killed by friendly fire. Even here we want to know what happened. The family members want to know. And why? What good does it do exactly? If we let ourselves live with the lie that he died under enemey fire, we can keep the illusion that he died a hero in combat against the enemy. But we don't want that illusion, do we? We want the truth. There may be more than one reason for this, but I think it is mainly because we want to honor the dead. It would be dishonorable to bury them with a lie. What a disgrace that would be, most of us feel. It's also a question of justice.
But we have the exact opposite attitude for the Bible. With the Bible, we feel that lies are better than the truth. We built parts of our society on these stories. To overturn any of them now would cause too much of an earthquake. Lies are better than truth. Truth and reconciliation in almost every aspect of our society. But not with the Bible. Here, the truth is trouble, we believe.
When I speak of the Bible, what I mainly have in mind is the New Testament and not even all of the New Testament, but particularly the story of how Jesus died. We would like to honor people who died yesterday or last year, even a soldier who was killed by friendly fire. But we have a different rule if they died thousands of years ago. We owe the long dead no honor. Lies are a better deal for them, but we mean for us.
I think we owe ancient Jewish leaders, Judas, and Jesus too quite a bit of honor. We owe them a thoughtful and deep investigation into the truth. That does not serve powerful interests. But who said the truth ever did? We don't want to offend long-entrenched power and that is our biggest reason for fearing the truth. But if we want to deal with the ancients in anything but a disgraceful way, then we will have to take a hard look at our fears, swallow even harder, and not get so upset when we realize that the evidence tells us something different from what we have always been told.
Leon Zitzer
Most of us would say we have a deep faith in the truth. We believe that the truth is good to know and that lies are harmful. We believe this in practically all areas of life from the personal to the political. We will fight for the truth — for our right to know it — and we harshly criticize anyone who tries to hide it from us and offer us a lie instead.
Occasionally, we make an exception to this general rule, but rarely. We want the truth even when it seems it won't do anyone any good. Think of when a soldier is killed by friendly fire. Even here we want to know what happened. The family members want to know. And why? What good does it do exactly? If we let ourselves live with the lie that he died under enemey fire, we can keep the illusion that he died a hero in combat against the enemy. But we don't want that illusion, do we? We want the truth. There may be more than one reason for this, but I think it is mainly because we want to honor the dead. It would be dishonorable to bury them with a lie. What a disgrace that would be, most of us feel. It's also a question of justice.
But we have the exact opposite attitude for the Bible. With the Bible, we feel that lies are better than the truth. We built parts of our society on these stories. To overturn any of them now would cause too much of an earthquake. Lies are better than truth. Truth and reconciliation in almost every aspect of our society. But not with the Bible. Here, the truth is trouble, we believe.
When I speak of the Bible, what I mainly have in mind is the New Testament and not even all of the New Testament, but particularly the story of how Jesus died. We would like to honor people who died yesterday or last year, even a soldier who was killed by friendly fire. But we have a different rule if they died thousands of years ago. We owe the long dead no honor. Lies are a better deal for them, but we mean for us.
I think we owe ancient Jewish leaders, Judas, and Jesus too quite a bit of honor. We owe them a thoughtful and deep investigation into the truth. That does not serve powerful interests. But who said the truth ever did? We don't want to offend long-entrenched power and that is our biggest reason for fearing the truth. But if we want to deal with the ancients in anything but a disgraceful way, then we will have to take a hard look at our fears, swallow even harder, and not get so upset when we realize that the evidence tells us something different from what we have always been told.
Leon Zitzer
Sunday, April 26, 2009
SITTING AT THE FEET OF RABBI JESUS
This is the title of a brand-new book by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg, published by Zondervan. As a book on Jesus' Jewishness, giving more detail than most books do, it deserves to be addressed in a careful, detailed way, which I will do in this essay. I am not a book reviewer, so don't look for a broad review here. However, I will tell you one thing that any reviewer would tell you: the importance of the sub-title, "How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith".
This is a book written from the point of view of Christian faith for Christians of faith. The authors make no bones about it. Each chapter ends with some suggestions as to what a Christian might do to consolidate the lessons learned therein. This book does not pretend to be a pure scholarly study. And yet, the authors do a far better job explaining some important things abouit Jesus' Jewishness than the typical historical Jesus scholar does. You won't learn one-tenth of what can be found in this book from mainstream scholarship — despite the fact that these authors bring a definite bias to the subject!
So what is the first thing we learn from the sub-title? If you are honest about your agenda or prejudices, you will do a much better job at discussing the evidence. Most scholars will not acknowledge they have any prejudices, which really means their biases operate in secret and therefore control the so-called objective analysis. At the end of the book, Tverberg honestly admits the prejudices she once harbored about Judaism, and both admit that it is their faith as Christians that guide this study. This produces more objective results than you will get from other scholars. It will also introduce a problem or two. I'll get to that further on.
First, here is a sampling of some of the more interesting things you will learn either about Jesus' Jewishness or about his historical Jewish culture (I will give page references throughout):
— Jewish women had a good role to play in Judaism and could be educated (12, 80). This is in stark contrast to what most historical Jesus scholars say, who claim that Jewish women had second-class status and that Jesus elevated them against the strictures of his own culture. At the end of the book (199), Tverberg explains that she once shared this prejudiced idea.
— study and debate were extremely important in Jewish culture, more important than worship, so that Jews practiced their religion in a thoughtful way, and Jesus participated in this (25-29).
— rabbinic teaching contains many surprises (26, 31), not unlike Jesus' capacity to surprise.
— a good description of what the rabbis meant by devotion to Torah, and how Jesus shared this belief (57).
— favorably comparing a rabbinic teaching and Jesus on how to pray (85).
— Jesus blessed food like a Jewish father, which means he thanked God for providing it (94).
— Jewish tradition sanctifies time more than space (124).
— Jesus is placed in Jewish tradition when he tells his disciples to travel light and depend on the hospitality of others (131). As with the first example I gave, this is quite a contrast to all those scholars who try to put Jesus in the Greek Cynic tradition.
— Jesus and Pharisees had much in common concerning the things they criticized, such as hypocrisy (168).
— throughout the book, the authors offer many rabbinic parallels to Jesus' teachings. One example is how strongly rabbinic tradition and Jesus condemned humiliating another person(170). I will return to this one further below.
That's not bad. It's rather good, and I have not listed everything you will find in this book. Read works by John Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Meier, Raymond Brown, E.P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, and more, and you will be much less informed about what makes Jesus so Jewish. Even Amy-Jill Levine's The Misunderstoof Jew, which is a good book, does not tell you anywhere near as much as Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus.
The very few mistakes Spangler and Tverberg make stem from the old and still prevailing Christian attitude that Jesus must be superior and Judaism inferior, though scholars these days strain themselves to express this as subtly as possible. There seems to be a deep need in almost all Christian scholars to make Jesus at some point better than what rabbis and Pharisees taught.
Spangler and Tverberg too feel compelled to put distance between Jesus and the Pharisees, describing the latter as only close to the truth (168-69). They do the same when they talk about rabbinic interpretation of Passover (105). How often they use the language of Jesus fulfilling Jewish traditions. Much as they admire and understand Jewish culture, for them only Jesus gets all the way to the ultimate truth. Traditionally, Christian scholars have played this up to the hilt, whereas Spangler and Tverberg limit the moments they contrast Jesus to Jewish teaching.
German scholar Wolfgang Stegemann calls this playing a game of one-upmanship in which Jesus is always declared to be one up from or one better than Jewish culture. Stegemann has a good point, but I think it is more like a game of one-downmanship. After all, it is not as if the scholars who play this game start out with an accurate idea of Judaism and then make Jesus one better. Rather, what they do is start with an idea about Jesus and then downgrade Judaism from there, regardless of what the actual facts about Judaism are.
This is standard practice in mainstream historical Jesus scholarship. Yes, it's that bad. They assert that Jesus is anti-Torah, anti-Temple, anti-purity, anti-rituals, anti-tribal, anti-inequality, etc., and then thoughtlessly make Judaism pro- all these things in order to make Judaism appear to be legalistic and obsessed with externals.
Thankfully, Spangler and Tverberg do not do this as much as most scholars do. They are too respectful and knowledgeable, for the most part, about ancient Judaism to denigrate Judaism willy-nilly on so many points. In fact, they occasionally criticize this kind of thinking. Also, thankfully, when they do make a mistake, they do not stick to it consistently and will actually give information that contradicts their mistake. I will give a few examples to explain what I mean. But they do sometimes play the game of one-downmanship and get both Judaism and Jesus wrong as a result. I will get to that too.
At one point, they seem to be headed in the standard theological direction which says that ancient Jews had a materialistic understanding of the kingdom of God, while Jesus had a more spiritual idea of it. But then they do a complete about-face and say that both Jesus and the rabbis understood the kingdom of God in an internal way, as something within you. "So for both Jesus and the rabbis, to 'receive' or to 'enter the kingdom of heaven' could describe making a personal commitment to loving God with all your heart" (193). And further on, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195).
But then they make the following misstatements in relation to the rabbis, which they do not consciously correct, as in the above example, though they do provide evidence to undermine their own statements: "Unlike other rabbis, this rabbi [Jesus] spoke with great authority, as though he knew the mind of God — and this was the essential difference [between Jesus and the other rabbis] ... The rabbis lacked the authority to say, 'This is what God really meant when he told us to keep the Sabbath holy'" (171).
This is not just false, it is blatantly false. They miss the historical context for one thing. This whole business about speaking with authority was an issue because the Sadducees and high priests objected to all the Pharisees and rabbis claiming authority to interpret Torah and the mind of God. By the 1st century, the Sadducees had lost this battle, but they were still shocked by this temerity which they would have seen in Jesus as much as in any Pharisee or rabbi. The Pharisees cultivated the art of strong personalities teaching their views and would have been delighted by Rabbi Jesus who was only doing what they believed a good rabbi should do.
I could give thousands of examples from rabbinic literature of the rabbis seeing into the heart and mind of God. They quote him rebuking the angels who had burst into song when the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea by telling them, "My children are drowning and you are singing!?" They also depict God praying to himself that his compassion should overcome his anger. There are so many examples like these. As for Shabbat or Sabbath, not only does the Talmud make the point that Jesus makes, that man rules over Shabbat and not the other way around, but it also offers what the rabbis ultimately considered a more profound point, namely that, God gave his ordinances, like Shabbat, to live by and not to suffer and die by, so that healing is of course allowed on Shabbat.
All religions which have some intimacy with God know something about God because you cannot be intimate with a stranger. I do not mind Spangler and Tverberg saying that, for them, Jesus is the greatest rabbi and reveals the mind of God better than anyone else. That's okay. What I strongly object to is any misrepresentations made about Judaism in order to promote their beliefs about Jesus. In this case, these authors should know better. They themselves talk about Jewish intimacy with God (e.g., 121). They even give the rabbinic comment about God giving his rain to benefit both the righteous and the unrighteous (which actually appears a number of times in rabbinic literature) and naturally the parallel in Jesus' remark at Matthew 5:45 (192).
So does it matter that they make an occasional error about Judaism? Yes, because it is a serious error which denigrates Judaism and because it leads them to miss important evidence from a page of the Talmud which they themselves just previously cited (170). In the last example I gave in the list above, I noted their comparison between Jesus and the rabbis on the way both strongly condemned the humiliation of another (causing blood to drain from the person's face) which was compared to murder. They cited Baba Metzia 59a. But they missed something equally important there.
The rabbis tell us that sometimes the gate of prayer to God is locked. God will not always hear your prayer. But there is one gate that is never locked — the gate of tears or the gate of wounded feelings. God will always listen to a broken heart, especially one who has been humiliated by his fellows and cries out in terrible pain. They tell us this twice on 59a and repeat it on 59b because it is an important part of the story they are telling there. How is that for an insight into what God cares most deeply about?
If you start with a preconception that only Jesus had the authority to see into the mind and heart of God, you will miss so much in rabbinic literature and you may miss some important elements in Jesus' teachings. Jesus was raised in a culture that was always wrestling to gain an intimate understanding of God. This is where he gets it from. He was not unique this way. All the Pharisees and rabbis, which includes Jesus, struggled mightily to accomplish this and they all enjoyed debating with each other and telling each other stories to make their points. Does Jesus also talk about the gate of tears always being open? I won't answer that here, but keep in mind that there is so much more to learn once all prejudices about Judaism are abandoned.
That brings me to what Spangler and Tverberg have to say about Hillel and Jesus. Unfortunately, they take the old, standard Christian line of putting Hillel down and making Jesus look better. I am sure they will say that this was not their intention and that they merely wanted to point to certain differences between them. But they go seriously awry when they talk this way. Recall my previous criticism of the way they occasionally describe the Pharisees and rabbis as being close to the truth, while Jesus reveals all.
For example, they say the rabbis were so close to understanding the true significance of Passover and the near sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham (105). That is so very, very wrong. The rabbis did not just come close. They got it exactly right. For Jews. It is demeaning and condescending to say otherwise.
Since time immemorial, Christians have been rewriting and re-interpreting Hebrew scripture to find some Christology in it. This is pure imperialism, a naked grab for power over another culture. It is unacceptable. I would say that Christians can borrow Hebrew scripture, but they cannot own it.
Think of it like music. Music has no respect for borders. It travels all over the world, crossing borders, inspiring musicians in other lands to create something new. But no good musician would ever say that his or her music is better than, or a fulfillment of, or more sophisticated than the music from some native source.
Culture (religious or any other kind) is like that. I don't think God meant for any culture to be restricted by borders. Cultures spread out and go a-travellin'. Christians have a right to say that the Hebrew Bible inspires something different in them and that God is speaking to them in a special way through this book. But they have absolutely no right to disrespect the original culture it comes from and say they have perceived the true or ultimate meaning of this text. They must continue to respect the original source on its own terms just as musicians do with music. I don't think Jesus would like any hint of spiritual imperialism towards his own culture.
That brings me back to Hillel and Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg state (again, as Christian scholars have done since forever) that Jesus' positive formulation of the golden rule is a greater expression of the meaning of Torah than Hillel's negative formulation of it (171-72). This is nonsense. For two reasons. First, as far as I know, the ancients did not distinguish between, or make a big deal of, the negative and positive statements of an idea. The negative way of putting something can often be a powerful rhetorical device. Jesus does this too on occasion. Which brings me to my second point.
If you are really going to argue consistently that positive is better than negative, then you would have to agree that when Jesus offers a negative insight which a Pharisee or rabbi expresses in a positive way, then Jesus has given the lesser or inferior point of view. Do any Christians want to concede this? I doubt it.
Jesus says that God as a good parent will not give his children bad things to eat (Matt 7:9-11; Luke 11:11-13). A couple of generations before, Shimon ben Shetach compared God to a father who gives his children only delicious things to eat. Is Shimon's formulation superior or more of a fulfillment of Torah? I would never say so. In the vineyard parable (Matt 20:1-16), there is a touch of bitterness in the workers who are paid last because they've been working all day. But in a similar rabbinic parable, there is only pure joy. Is the rabbinic parable spiritually better? I don't think so.
Or look at what Hillel and Jesus have to say about peace. Jesus says blessed are the peacemakers (Matt 5:9). Hillel bids people to love peace and pursue peace, and adds, to love all mankind (not just Jews) and bring them near to Torah (Pirke Avoth 1:12). Is Hillel's exhortation superior to that of Jesus because he connects love of peace and love of mankind? Of course not. And the same is true of their versions of the golden rule. No one is any better.
Not to mention, by the way, that it is silly to imagine that all these single quotations are the only way any of these ancient figures ever expressed themselves. Jesus quite likely put it Hillel's way on other occasions and Hillel probably expressed the golden rule differently at different times. We make too much of this or that quote. Does anyone believe that Jesus or any rabbi told each parable the exact same way every time? To harp on one expression of it is a disservice to all of them.
Spangler and Tverberg go on to offer a series of contrasts between Hillel and Jesus (172), making Jesus look better. They don't even present quotations. They merely sum up what they think each one stood for and apply it to modern life. To say they've been unfair to Hillel is an understatement. For example, they say that when you are pinched financially, Hillel would tell you "don't steal" and Jesus would say "look around to see who's worse off than you and find a way to help." May I say how odious this is to Jews? How demeaning to Hillel. Jesus would not like it.
I don't know what Hillel would say in each and every situation in life. But I do know that Christians often pick out Hillel as the best that Judaism has to offer, so if they can demonstrate that Hillel does not measure up to Jesus' standards, then obviously all of Judaism falls short of Jesus. In general, ancient Pharisees and rabbis advocated helping those in need, including gentiles. They would never advocate that you hurt yourself or your family in the process, and I doubt that Jesus would either, but they would always ask you to do whatever you can in each situation. Never close yourself off from the community and others. And while they were big about charity, they would point out that charity is often humiliating for the person in need, so a better way to help might be to provide a loan. In this way, the person can feel better about themselves and not feel so utterly dependent.
I'm not going to defend Judaism or Hillel on each and every point. Suffice it to say that this is all very belittling of Hillel. Jesus would hardly approve. He would be very embarrassed that anyone spoke this way about Hillel (and in Jesus' name yet!) to make it appear that Hillel practiced his Judaism in a lesser way. I think Jesus would actually be cringing.
I could offer a list of comparisons too, one that might make Hillel look better. I would include their comments on peace, as noted above. And how about Hillel's thought that man getting his daily bread is as wonderful a miracle as the parting of the Red Sea? Is this greater than, less than, or about the same as something Jesus said about daily bread? Answer: Who cares? It does not matter. There is greatness in both of them. Comparisons, especially those that demean, are out of order. Hillel would have been someone Jesus revered very much. It is not impossible that he studied with him (their dates of birth and death are uncertain, but Hillel could have died anywhere from a few years before Jesus was born to when Jesus was about fourteen).
I would suggest to Christians that if you really want to be a disciple of Jesus, then do not diminish Jewish sages out of fear that Jesus might be diminished if Jewish figures are not made to look smaller. If it makes Jesus cringe to hear his fellow Jews and Judaism undervalued in any way, it should make you feel that way too.
But another thing Spangler and Tverberg do very well is to explain where Jesus is alluding to the written Torah. They use this to give a fuller understanding of what he meant. They do this occasionally with oral Torah, but much more could be done here. There are places where you can hear Jesus tapping into stories about Hillel, Shimon ben Shetach, Shemaiah and Avtalyon, and probably many more.
In the Talmud, a rabbi comments that chutzpah (an Aramaic word) can be very useful with heaven. Jesus too talks a lot (and I do mean a lot) about approaching God with chutzpah and getting results. It is one of the most important aspects of his Jewishness, yet almost everyone misses it. I suspect that chutzpah towards God makes Jesus too Jewish for most people, so they would rather not hear it. But the evidence, and plenty of it, is there.
Jesus also occasionally uses the qal va-homer argument, known in Latin as the a fortiori argument, which was a very popular technique with Pharisees and rabbis. There is also some evidence that, like his compatriots, Jesus believed in due process, Torah as Constitution, and rational debate as to its meaning.
So what's the hold-up? Why haven't we made more progress learning about Jesus' Jewishness? I think there are two main reasons. One is a combination of prejudice against Judaism and a fear that a Jewish Jesus will be a lesser Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg seem to recognize this, which is why they put so much effort into convincing their Christian audience that Rabbi Jesus is no less a Jesus than the one they have always known. His specific rabbinic teachings make him more wonderful in their eyes, not less. That's why they also remind their readers from time to time that, though Jesus was a rabbi, he is the greatest rabbi of all and ultimately different.
They understand that Jesus cannot be diminished or else Christians will not listen. In a way, it may help their case to get Christians to pay attention to some of Jesus' Jewishness, if they reinforce the idea that Jesus transcends them all and is the fulfillment of Torah. My problem is that this means there will still be a continuation of misrepresentations about ancient Judaism, a failure to see all that Judaism accomplished, and, in the end, a disrespect for this culture and the sages who helped to create it.
The second reason we are so slow to get to an appreciation of Jesus' full Jewishness is that people have an intuition that if we ever understand Jesus' complete immersion in his own culture, then the traditional story of his death, in which Jewish leaders are the chief instigators with a little help from Judas Iscariot, will no longer hold up. The more Jesus is seen in harmony with his fellow Jews, including Jewish leaders, all happily sharing in the same culture, the more likely it is that he will lose the lethal Jewish enemies he has always been surrounded with.
This intuition is correct. And it is good news for Christianity, not bad news. The first thing that has to be done is to study Jewish history completely on its own terms. Christian theology has absolutely no place in this. Christian theology has nothing to do with who the Pharisees and priests were. And yet every Christian scholar brings some theological baggage with them into this Jewish history (and some bring a lot).
To reduce the Pharisees to being obsessed with Temple, rituals, and purity is a falsification and trivialization of their culture. The Pharisees fought for constitutional government, due process, reason, open debate with God, justice, peace. Of course, I am just listing general qualities. When you see the Pharisees in action against KIng Alexander Yannai (Jannaeus), Herod, and others, including the Sadducees, these words gain greater meaning. The priests were not the Pharisees, but Josephus makes it very clear that they would never cooperate with Romans in the arrest and prosecution of those Rome considered troublemakers charged with a capital crime.
My point is that just as Spangler and Tverberg hear things in the Gospels, now that they are more familiar with the Jewish context, so too you can hear the evidence in the Gospels in a different way, once you have a firmer grasp of real Jewish history. Did you know that a high priest ripping this robes before someone was not an act of condemnation, but an act of persuasion, an act of pleading? And this is merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
It is hard for people to accept this, but the traditional (and scholarly) version of Jesus' death is not the same as the Gospel version. The Gospel version is so much richer than anything you can imagine. What scholars have done is to erase any evidence that is in favor of Jewish leaders and Judas. They misstate the evidence to make it appear worse for them.
Scholars have a tendency to present both Judas' betrayal and the so-called Jewish trial of Jesus as if they were stated facts in the Gospels. They are not. They are theories or interpretations of the facts and quite bad ones at that. Did you know that Mark does not contain one definite feature of a story of betrayal? He does not use the word that definitely means betray, also no motive, no conflict with Jesus or other disciples, and not even anyone denouncing Judas after the deed is done (if anyone who knew Judas ever said a bad word about him, all four Gospels failed to record it). Mark's entire story is ambiguous to the nth degree. We read betrayal into it. We put betrayal in the text and then claim we found it there. Shame, shame.
This might seem to be taking us far afield from Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus. But not really. It's all about getting to the Jewish roots of the story. Recall that Spangler and Tverberg said, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195). So is the original story of what happened to Jesus, in which Judas never betrayed him and Jewish leaders tried to save him from a Roman execution. The clues are all there. We just have to listen.
In the kingdom of God, will we still condone lies and injustice because they make us feel comfortable? Are Jews and Christians that far apart here? A Jew is called upon to listen in the prayer of the Shema. So is a disciple of Jesus. Do we kowtow to the powers that would silence the evidence? Or do we listen to the silenced voices of the past and fight for the truth?
I wish Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus all the success in the world. I doubt that the authors will have much effect on academic scholars because historical Jesus scholarship has shown itself to be impervious to change. But then scholars are not their intended audience and that's probably a good thing. Despite my misgivngs about some of the false turns in this book, Spangler and Tverberg give enough good information about Jesus' Jewishness that it may help to wake some people up. I hope Christians will open themselves up to even more dialogue as I have suggested here. Just don't be surprised if Jews object to any unjust statements about what Judaism was and is. Learning to see the whole truth and achieving full justice must continue.
Leon Zitzer
This is the title of a brand-new book by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg, published by Zondervan. As a book on Jesus' Jewishness, giving more detail than most books do, it deserves to be addressed in a careful, detailed way, which I will do in this essay. I am not a book reviewer, so don't look for a broad review here. However, I will tell you one thing that any reviewer would tell you: the importance of the sub-title, "How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith".
This is a book written from the point of view of Christian faith for Christians of faith. The authors make no bones about it. Each chapter ends with some suggestions as to what a Christian might do to consolidate the lessons learned therein. This book does not pretend to be a pure scholarly study. And yet, the authors do a far better job explaining some important things abouit Jesus' Jewishness than the typical historical Jesus scholar does. You won't learn one-tenth of what can be found in this book from mainstream scholarship — despite the fact that these authors bring a definite bias to the subject!
So what is the first thing we learn from the sub-title? If you are honest about your agenda or prejudices, you will do a much better job at discussing the evidence. Most scholars will not acknowledge they have any prejudices, which really means their biases operate in secret and therefore control the so-called objective analysis. At the end of the book, Tverberg honestly admits the prejudices she once harbored about Judaism, and both admit that it is their faith as Christians that guide this study. This produces more objective results than you will get from other scholars. It will also introduce a problem or two. I'll get to that further on.
First, here is a sampling of some of the more interesting things you will learn either about Jesus' Jewishness or about his historical Jewish culture (I will give page references throughout):
— Jewish women had a good role to play in Judaism and could be educated (12, 80). This is in stark contrast to what most historical Jesus scholars say, who claim that Jewish women had second-class status and that Jesus elevated them against the strictures of his own culture. At the end of the book (199), Tverberg explains that she once shared this prejudiced idea.
— study and debate were extremely important in Jewish culture, more important than worship, so that Jews practiced their religion in a thoughtful way, and Jesus participated in this (25-29).
— rabbinic teaching contains many surprises (26, 31), not unlike Jesus' capacity to surprise.
— a good description of what the rabbis meant by devotion to Torah, and how Jesus shared this belief (57).
— favorably comparing a rabbinic teaching and Jesus on how to pray (85).
— Jesus blessed food like a Jewish father, which means he thanked God for providing it (94).
— Jewish tradition sanctifies time more than space (124).
— Jesus is placed in Jewish tradition when he tells his disciples to travel light and depend on the hospitality of others (131). As with the first example I gave, this is quite a contrast to all those scholars who try to put Jesus in the Greek Cynic tradition.
— Jesus and Pharisees had much in common concerning the things they criticized, such as hypocrisy (168).
— throughout the book, the authors offer many rabbinic parallels to Jesus' teachings. One example is how strongly rabbinic tradition and Jesus condemned humiliating another person(170). I will return to this one further below.
That's not bad. It's rather good, and I have not listed everything you will find in this book. Read works by John Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Meier, Raymond Brown, E.P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, and more, and you will be much less informed about what makes Jesus so Jewish. Even Amy-Jill Levine's The Misunderstoof Jew, which is a good book, does not tell you anywhere near as much as Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus.
The very few mistakes Spangler and Tverberg make stem from the old and still prevailing Christian attitude that Jesus must be superior and Judaism inferior, though scholars these days strain themselves to express this as subtly as possible. There seems to be a deep need in almost all Christian scholars to make Jesus at some point better than what rabbis and Pharisees taught.
Spangler and Tverberg too feel compelled to put distance between Jesus and the Pharisees, describing the latter as only close to the truth (168-69). They do the same when they talk about rabbinic interpretation of Passover (105). How often they use the language of Jesus fulfilling Jewish traditions. Much as they admire and understand Jewish culture, for them only Jesus gets all the way to the ultimate truth. Traditionally, Christian scholars have played this up to the hilt, whereas Spangler and Tverberg limit the moments they contrast Jesus to Jewish teaching.
German scholar Wolfgang Stegemann calls this playing a game of one-upmanship in which Jesus is always declared to be one up from or one better than Jewish culture. Stegemann has a good point, but I think it is more like a game of one-downmanship. After all, it is not as if the scholars who play this game start out with an accurate idea of Judaism and then make Jesus one better. Rather, what they do is start with an idea about Jesus and then downgrade Judaism from there, regardless of what the actual facts about Judaism are.
This is standard practice in mainstream historical Jesus scholarship. Yes, it's that bad. They assert that Jesus is anti-Torah, anti-Temple, anti-purity, anti-rituals, anti-tribal, anti-inequality, etc., and then thoughtlessly make Judaism pro- all these things in order to make Judaism appear to be legalistic and obsessed with externals.
Thankfully, Spangler and Tverberg do not do this as much as most scholars do. They are too respectful and knowledgeable, for the most part, about ancient Judaism to denigrate Judaism willy-nilly on so many points. In fact, they occasionally criticize this kind of thinking. Also, thankfully, when they do make a mistake, they do not stick to it consistently and will actually give information that contradicts their mistake. I will give a few examples to explain what I mean. But they do sometimes play the game of one-downmanship and get both Judaism and Jesus wrong as a result. I will get to that too.
At one point, they seem to be headed in the standard theological direction which says that ancient Jews had a materialistic understanding of the kingdom of God, while Jesus had a more spiritual idea of it. But then they do a complete about-face and say that both Jesus and the rabbis understood the kingdom of God in an internal way, as something within you. "So for both Jesus and the rabbis, to 'receive' or to 'enter the kingdom of heaven' could describe making a personal commitment to loving God with all your heart" (193). And further on, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195).
But then they make the following misstatements in relation to the rabbis, which they do not consciously correct, as in the above example, though they do provide evidence to undermine their own statements: "Unlike other rabbis, this rabbi [Jesus] spoke with great authority, as though he knew the mind of God — and this was the essential difference [between Jesus and the other rabbis] ... The rabbis lacked the authority to say, 'This is what God really meant when he told us to keep the Sabbath holy'" (171).
This is not just false, it is blatantly false. They miss the historical context for one thing. This whole business about speaking with authority was an issue because the Sadducees and high priests objected to all the Pharisees and rabbis claiming authority to interpret Torah and the mind of God. By the 1st century, the Sadducees had lost this battle, but they were still shocked by this temerity which they would have seen in Jesus as much as in any Pharisee or rabbi. The Pharisees cultivated the art of strong personalities teaching their views and would have been delighted by Rabbi Jesus who was only doing what they believed a good rabbi should do.
I could give thousands of examples from rabbinic literature of the rabbis seeing into the heart and mind of God. They quote him rebuking the angels who had burst into song when the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea by telling them, "My children are drowning and you are singing!?" They also depict God praying to himself that his compassion should overcome his anger. There are so many examples like these. As for Shabbat or Sabbath, not only does the Talmud make the point that Jesus makes, that man rules over Shabbat and not the other way around, but it also offers what the rabbis ultimately considered a more profound point, namely that, God gave his ordinances, like Shabbat, to live by and not to suffer and die by, so that healing is of course allowed on Shabbat.
All religions which have some intimacy with God know something about God because you cannot be intimate with a stranger. I do not mind Spangler and Tverberg saying that, for them, Jesus is the greatest rabbi and reveals the mind of God better than anyone else. That's okay. What I strongly object to is any misrepresentations made about Judaism in order to promote their beliefs about Jesus. In this case, these authors should know better. They themselves talk about Jewish intimacy with God (e.g., 121). They even give the rabbinic comment about God giving his rain to benefit both the righteous and the unrighteous (which actually appears a number of times in rabbinic literature) and naturally the parallel in Jesus' remark at Matthew 5:45 (192).
So does it matter that they make an occasional error about Judaism? Yes, because it is a serious error which denigrates Judaism and because it leads them to miss important evidence from a page of the Talmud which they themselves just previously cited (170). In the last example I gave in the list above, I noted their comparison between Jesus and the rabbis on the way both strongly condemned the humiliation of another (causing blood to drain from the person's face) which was compared to murder. They cited Baba Metzia 59a. But they missed something equally important there.
The rabbis tell us that sometimes the gate of prayer to God is locked. God will not always hear your prayer. But there is one gate that is never locked — the gate of tears or the gate of wounded feelings. God will always listen to a broken heart, especially one who has been humiliated by his fellows and cries out in terrible pain. They tell us this twice on 59a and repeat it on 59b because it is an important part of the story they are telling there. How is that for an insight into what God cares most deeply about?
If you start with a preconception that only Jesus had the authority to see into the mind and heart of God, you will miss so much in rabbinic literature and you may miss some important elements in Jesus' teachings. Jesus was raised in a culture that was always wrestling to gain an intimate understanding of God. This is where he gets it from. He was not unique this way. All the Pharisees and rabbis, which includes Jesus, struggled mightily to accomplish this and they all enjoyed debating with each other and telling each other stories to make their points. Does Jesus also talk about the gate of tears always being open? I won't answer that here, but keep in mind that there is so much more to learn once all prejudices about Judaism are abandoned.
That brings me to what Spangler and Tverberg have to say about Hillel and Jesus. Unfortunately, they take the old, standard Christian line of putting Hillel down and making Jesus look better. I am sure they will say that this was not their intention and that they merely wanted to point to certain differences between them. But they go seriously awry when they talk this way. Recall my previous criticism of the way they occasionally describe the Pharisees and rabbis as being close to the truth, while Jesus reveals all.
For example, they say the rabbis were so close to understanding the true significance of Passover and the near sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham (105). That is so very, very wrong. The rabbis did not just come close. They got it exactly right. For Jews. It is demeaning and condescending to say otherwise.
Since time immemorial, Christians have been rewriting and re-interpreting Hebrew scripture to find some Christology in it. This is pure imperialism, a naked grab for power over another culture. It is unacceptable. I would say that Christians can borrow Hebrew scripture, but they cannot own it.
Think of it like music. Music has no respect for borders. It travels all over the world, crossing borders, inspiring musicians in other lands to create something new. But no good musician would ever say that his or her music is better than, or a fulfillment of, or more sophisticated than the music from some native source.
Culture (religious or any other kind) is like that. I don't think God meant for any culture to be restricted by borders. Cultures spread out and go a-travellin'. Christians have a right to say that the Hebrew Bible inspires something different in them and that God is speaking to them in a special way through this book. But they have absolutely no right to disrespect the original culture it comes from and say they have perceived the true or ultimate meaning of this text. They must continue to respect the original source on its own terms just as musicians do with music. I don't think Jesus would like any hint of spiritual imperialism towards his own culture.
That brings me back to Hillel and Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg state (again, as Christian scholars have done since forever) that Jesus' positive formulation of the golden rule is a greater expression of the meaning of Torah than Hillel's negative formulation of it (171-72). This is nonsense. For two reasons. First, as far as I know, the ancients did not distinguish between, or make a big deal of, the negative and positive statements of an idea. The negative way of putting something can often be a powerful rhetorical device. Jesus does this too on occasion. Which brings me to my second point.
If you are really going to argue consistently that positive is better than negative, then you would have to agree that when Jesus offers a negative insight which a Pharisee or rabbi expresses in a positive way, then Jesus has given the lesser or inferior point of view. Do any Christians want to concede this? I doubt it.
Jesus says that God as a good parent will not give his children bad things to eat (Matt 7:9-11; Luke 11:11-13). A couple of generations before, Shimon ben Shetach compared God to a father who gives his children only delicious things to eat. Is Shimon's formulation superior or more of a fulfillment of Torah? I would never say so. In the vineyard parable (Matt 20:1-16), there is a touch of bitterness in the workers who are paid last because they've been working all day. But in a similar rabbinic parable, there is only pure joy. Is the rabbinic parable spiritually better? I don't think so.
Or look at what Hillel and Jesus have to say about peace. Jesus says blessed are the peacemakers (Matt 5:9). Hillel bids people to love peace and pursue peace, and adds, to love all mankind (not just Jews) and bring them near to Torah (Pirke Avoth 1:12). Is Hillel's exhortation superior to that of Jesus because he connects love of peace and love of mankind? Of course not. And the same is true of their versions of the golden rule. No one is any better.
Not to mention, by the way, that it is silly to imagine that all these single quotations are the only way any of these ancient figures ever expressed themselves. Jesus quite likely put it Hillel's way on other occasions and Hillel probably expressed the golden rule differently at different times. We make too much of this or that quote. Does anyone believe that Jesus or any rabbi told each parable the exact same way every time? To harp on one expression of it is a disservice to all of them.
Spangler and Tverberg go on to offer a series of contrasts between Hillel and Jesus (172), making Jesus look better. They don't even present quotations. They merely sum up what they think each one stood for and apply it to modern life. To say they've been unfair to Hillel is an understatement. For example, they say that when you are pinched financially, Hillel would tell you "don't steal" and Jesus would say "look around to see who's worse off than you and find a way to help." May I say how odious this is to Jews? How demeaning to Hillel. Jesus would not like it.
I don't know what Hillel would say in each and every situation in life. But I do know that Christians often pick out Hillel as the best that Judaism has to offer, so if they can demonstrate that Hillel does not measure up to Jesus' standards, then obviously all of Judaism falls short of Jesus. In general, ancient Pharisees and rabbis advocated helping those in need, including gentiles. They would never advocate that you hurt yourself or your family in the process, and I doubt that Jesus would either, but they would always ask you to do whatever you can in each situation. Never close yourself off from the community and others. And while they were big about charity, they would point out that charity is often humiliating for the person in need, so a better way to help might be to provide a loan. In this way, the person can feel better about themselves and not feel so utterly dependent.
I'm not going to defend Judaism or Hillel on each and every point. Suffice it to say that this is all very belittling of Hillel. Jesus would hardly approve. He would be very embarrassed that anyone spoke this way about Hillel (and in Jesus' name yet!) to make it appear that Hillel practiced his Judaism in a lesser way. I think Jesus would actually be cringing.
I could offer a list of comparisons too, one that might make Hillel look better. I would include their comments on peace, as noted above. And how about Hillel's thought that man getting his daily bread is as wonderful a miracle as the parting of the Red Sea? Is this greater than, less than, or about the same as something Jesus said about daily bread? Answer: Who cares? It does not matter. There is greatness in both of them. Comparisons, especially those that demean, are out of order. Hillel would have been someone Jesus revered very much. It is not impossible that he studied with him (their dates of birth and death are uncertain, but Hillel could have died anywhere from a few years before Jesus was born to when Jesus was about fourteen).
I would suggest to Christians that if you really want to be a disciple of Jesus, then do not diminish Jewish sages out of fear that Jesus might be diminished if Jewish figures are not made to look smaller. If it makes Jesus cringe to hear his fellow Jews and Judaism undervalued in any way, it should make you feel that way too.
But another thing Spangler and Tverberg do very well is to explain where Jesus is alluding to the written Torah. They use this to give a fuller understanding of what he meant. They do this occasionally with oral Torah, but much more could be done here. There are places where you can hear Jesus tapping into stories about Hillel, Shimon ben Shetach, Shemaiah and Avtalyon, and probably many more.
In the Talmud, a rabbi comments that chutzpah (an Aramaic word) can be very useful with heaven. Jesus too talks a lot (and I do mean a lot) about approaching God with chutzpah and getting results. It is one of the most important aspects of his Jewishness, yet almost everyone misses it. I suspect that chutzpah towards God makes Jesus too Jewish for most people, so they would rather not hear it. But the evidence, and plenty of it, is there.
Jesus also occasionally uses the qal va-homer argument, known in Latin as the a fortiori argument, which was a very popular technique with Pharisees and rabbis. There is also some evidence that, like his compatriots, Jesus believed in due process, Torah as Constitution, and rational debate as to its meaning.
So what's the hold-up? Why haven't we made more progress learning about Jesus' Jewishness? I think there are two main reasons. One is a combination of prejudice against Judaism and a fear that a Jewish Jesus will be a lesser Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg seem to recognize this, which is why they put so much effort into convincing their Christian audience that Rabbi Jesus is no less a Jesus than the one they have always known. His specific rabbinic teachings make him more wonderful in their eyes, not less. That's why they also remind their readers from time to time that, though Jesus was a rabbi, he is the greatest rabbi of all and ultimately different.
They understand that Jesus cannot be diminished or else Christians will not listen. In a way, it may help their case to get Christians to pay attention to some of Jesus' Jewishness, if they reinforce the idea that Jesus transcends them all and is the fulfillment of Torah. My problem is that this means there will still be a continuation of misrepresentations about ancient Judaism, a failure to see all that Judaism accomplished, and, in the end, a disrespect for this culture and the sages who helped to create it.
The second reason we are so slow to get to an appreciation of Jesus' full Jewishness is that people have an intuition that if we ever understand Jesus' complete immersion in his own culture, then the traditional story of his death, in which Jewish leaders are the chief instigators with a little help from Judas Iscariot, will no longer hold up. The more Jesus is seen in harmony with his fellow Jews, including Jewish leaders, all happily sharing in the same culture, the more likely it is that he will lose the lethal Jewish enemies he has always been surrounded with.
This intuition is correct. And it is good news for Christianity, not bad news. The first thing that has to be done is to study Jewish history completely on its own terms. Christian theology has absolutely no place in this. Christian theology has nothing to do with who the Pharisees and priests were. And yet every Christian scholar brings some theological baggage with them into this Jewish history (and some bring a lot).
To reduce the Pharisees to being obsessed with Temple, rituals, and purity is a falsification and trivialization of their culture. The Pharisees fought for constitutional government, due process, reason, open debate with God, justice, peace. Of course, I am just listing general qualities. When you see the Pharisees in action against KIng Alexander Yannai (Jannaeus), Herod, and others, including the Sadducees, these words gain greater meaning. The priests were not the Pharisees, but Josephus makes it very clear that they would never cooperate with Romans in the arrest and prosecution of those Rome considered troublemakers charged with a capital crime.
My point is that just as Spangler and Tverberg hear things in the Gospels, now that they are more familiar with the Jewish context, so too you can hear the evidence in the Gospels in a different way, once you have a firmer grasp of real Jewish history. Did you know that a high priest ripping this robes before someone was not an act of condemnation, but an act of persuasion, an act of pleading? And this is merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
It is hard for people to accept this, but the traditional (and scholarly) version of Jesus' death is not the same as the Gospel version. The Gospel version is so much richer than anything you can imagine. What scholars have done is to erase any evidence that is in favor of Jewish leaders and Judas. They misstate the evidence to make it appear worse for them.
Scholars have a tendency to present both Judas' betrayal and the so-called Jewish trial of Jesus as if they were stated facts in the Gospels. They are not. They are theories or interpretations of the facts and quite bad ones at that. Did you know that Mark does not contain one definite feature of a story of betrayal? He does not use the word that definitely means betray, also no motive, no conflict with Jesus or other disciples, and not even anyone denouncing Judas after the deed is done (if anyone who knew Judas ever said a bad word about him, all four Gospels failed to record it). Mark's entire story is ambiguous to the nth degree. We read betrayal into it. We put betrayal in the text and then claim we found it there. Shame, shame.
This might seem to be taking us far afield from Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus. But not really. It's all about getting to the Jewish roots of the story. Recall that Spangler and Tverberg said, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195). So is the original story of what happened to Jesus, in which Judas never betrayed him and Jewish leaders tried to save him from a Roman execution. The clues are all there. We just have to listen.
In the kingdom of God, will we still condone lies and injustice because they make us feel comfortable? Are Jews and Christians that far apart here? A Jew is called upon to listen in the prayer of the Shema. So is a disciple of Jesus. Do we kowtow to the powers that would silence the evidence? Or do we listen to the silenced voices of the past and fight for the truth?
I wish Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus all the success in the world. I doubt that the authors will have much effect on academic scholars because historical Jesus scholarship has shown itself to be impervious to change. But then scholars are not their intended audience and that's probably a good thing. Despite my misgivngs about some of the false turns in this book, Spangler and Tverberg give enough good information about Jesus' Jewishness that it may help to wake some people up. I hope Christians will open themselves up to even more dialogue as I have suggested here. Just don't be surprised if Jews object to any unjust statements about what Judaism was and is. Learning to see the whole truth and achieving full justice must continue.
Leon Zitzer
Saturday, March 28, 2009
WHERE ARE ALL THE FILMMAKERS? WHERE IS ANY FILMMAKER?
It's been five years now since Mel Gibson's The Passion was released. Many people, both Jews and Christians, were upset at what he did in that film. In Hollywood too, there was plenty of anger at the anti-Jewish sentiment in this film. But for all the talk and controversy at the time, where has there been any response in a movie to his treatment of this subject? Not only have Hollywood filmmakers been silent, there has been nothing from any independent filmmaker. Not one film has appeared on the scene to counter the images Gibson gave us. Why is that?
I think the main reason is that no one is sure what would constitute a response. Everyone seems to feel that Gibson told the traditional story but gave it a little extra spin. A response to him would be what? The same story but toned down in its negativity and violence? Hollywood has made these films already. So what else is there to do?
The problem is that no one knows how to approach the evidence in a fresh way. We have all been blinded by centuries of tradition and scholarship that keeps repeating the same old story in slightly varied forms. The characters of the priests, Pharisees, Judas, Barabbas, and more have been drilled into our heads over and over again. Genuine historical Jesus studies does not exist yet. What we get in historical Jesus scholarship is really just a constantly repeated Passion play. There is no other way to see it as far as anyone is concerned. There is no fresh look at the evidence, so a truly new film is not a possibility. Everyone is stuck and perhaps that is what Gibson's film revealed more than anything else.
It is not just my own work that has been suppressed. It is also the works of Haim Cohn and William Klassen. In a rational world, Cohn's 1971 book on the death of Jesus would have sparked a debate. Mainstream scholars made sure that would not happen. Klassen's book on Judas has also been largely ignored, even though a majority of scholars admit that he is right that betray is a mistranslation of the Greek word paradidomi. They just ignore all the other evidence he discussed and they steadfastly deny that a mistranslation should have any effect on our historical opinion of what happened.
We are stuck because we want to be stuck. That is the goal of historical Jesus scholarship. There is no academic freedom of dissent allowed in this field. And so filmmakers of all sorts have no idea what to do. Debate has been forbidden. The Passion play goes on. No new movie, just a loop of old film endlessly replayed.
Leon Zitzer
It's been five years now since Mel Gibson's The Passion was released. Many people, both Jews and Christians, were upset at what he did in that film. In Hollywood too, there was plenty of anger at the anti-Jewish sentiment in this film. But for all the talk and controversy at the time, where has there been any response in a movie to his treatment of this subject? Not only have Hollywood filmmakers been silent, there has been nothing from any independent filmmaker. Not one film has appeared on the scene to counter the images Gibson gave us. Why is that?
I think the main reason is that no one is sure what would constitute a response. Everyone seems to feel that Gibson told the traditional story but gave it a little extra spin. A response to him would be what? The same story but toned down in its negativity and violence? Hollywood has made these films already. So what else is there to do?
The problem is that no one knows how to approach the evidence in a fresh way. We have all been blinded by centuries of tradition and scholarship that keeps repeating the same old story in slightly varied forms. The characters of the priests, Pharisees, Judas, Barabbas, and more have been drilled into our heads over and over again. Genuine historical Jesus studies does not exist yet. What we get in historical Jesus scholarship is really just a constantly repeated Passion play. There is no other way to see it as far as anyone is concerned. There is no fresh look at the evidence, so a truly new film is not a possibility. Everyone is stuck and perhaps that is what Gibson's film revealed more than anything else.
It is not just my own work that has been suppressed. It is also the works of Haim Cohn and William Klassen. In a rational world, Cohn's 1971 book on the death of Jesus would have sparked a debate. Mainstream scholars made sure that would not happen. Klassen's book on Judas has also been largely ignored, even though a majority of scholars admit that he is right that betray is a mistranslation of the Greek word paradidomi. They just ignore all the other evidence he discussed and they steadfastly deny that a mistranslation should have any effect on our historical opinion of what happened.
We are stuck because we want to be stuck. That is the goal of historical Jesus scholarship. There is no academic freedom of dissent allowed in this field. And so filmmakers of all sorts have no idea what to do. Debate has been forbidden. The Passion play goes on. No new movie, just a loop of old film endlessly replayed.
Leon Zitzer
Sunday, February 22, 2009
KIDNAPPED JEWS — A HASIDIC STORY
You hear and read a lot of stories as you go along in life. It is only when the years pass and certain stories remain with you that you can say which ones are really meaningful to you. It could have to do with the story itself or something inside you, but this is what grabs you — strongly enough so that many years later, you cannot forget it.
For me, one of these is a Hasidic story about the Baal Shem Tov and his assistant. They have been kidnapped by a demon or magic power and transported to a strange land. Their memory has been taken from them. They do not know who they are, where they are, their names, or what culture they come from. I cannot remember whether they have also been deprived of their belief in God or whether God is someone they still know and care about. I seem to recall they are aware of their predicament. They know they once had memories they have now been shorn of and are distraught over it.
They constantly question each other and try to drag up some remembrance from things past, but to no avail. Finally, it was the assistant, I believe, who says he remembers the alphabet — aleph, bet, gimmel, daled ... (A,B,C,D ...). "Good," says the Baal Shem. "Let us chant the alphabet over and over again." They do so. They pour into it all the enthusiasm they used to put into their prayers. Over and over. And then the magic, evil spell is broken and they are back in their home community.
It's not hard to see why I or anyone would love this story. It's about hope. When you're down and out, it ain't over. When everything has been taken from you, when you have nothing, something good can still happen. There is a way back. We love that. I love it. Hope is part of the human condition. Maybe it is the human condition par excellent. Even when it is absolutely ridiculous to have any hope, we will continue hoping. We need it to live, just to survive another day. But if this is all there was to the story, I would not like it as much as I do.
I like it because it is more specific than the general suggestion to keep hope alive. The danger that they are in is a very specific kind of danger. Their memories have been stolen. They have been robbed of their culture. Their history and the history of their people have been erased for them. This is a danger for many peoples, not just Jews. What can we do about it? How to defeat it?
The answer in the story is a little less specific, but it's not a general answer of just hold on. They go back to something fundamental (which is what I take the alphabet to represent), and they pursue it with all their passion. Now I suppose you could say that it is about prayer, that prayer is the answer. They chant the alphabet as if they were praying. So prayer can save you? Yes. But prayer takes many different forms.
The story actually tells us that you don't have to pray the traditional prayers in order to reach God. You can pray another way. A fundamental way. What is prayer? And what does prayer accomplish here?
Remember: Their culture and their history have been erased. You can beat that. You can beat the powers that want to do this to you (and one thing the story does not tell us is that the powers that do this are very human and not demons at all). God will help you. But you are going to have to put your whole heart into it. This will not happen without your devotion. Reach for something basic and hold onto it with all your heart and soul.
But what is that fundamental thing? That's where the story does not give an answer. For John Berger, poetry is prayer. Talking about injustice is prayer. (See his truly wonderful essay "The Hour of Poetry", probably available in any retrospective selection of his essays.) I'd go with that. For me, to talk with great accuracy about injustice, and historical injustice, in particular, is a form of prayer. As Berger recognizes, "To break the silence of events, to speak of experience however bitter or lacerating, to put into words, is to discover the hope that these words may be heard, and that when heard, the events will be judged. This hope is, of course, at the origin of prayer ..."
Sometimes, I think that if I just chant the accomplishments of the Pharisees over and over, this will somehow cause a breakthrough. Constitutional government, due process, justice, peace, open debate with God. This was Jesus' real historical context. If I constantly repeat them, maybe historical Jesus scholars will finally get it and release the Pharisees and Jesus from the captivity they've been placed in. Historical Jesus scholars are obsessed with Temple, rituals, purity, and have imprisoned the Pharisees and Jesus in their own scholarly obsessions. Can chanting release them? Is it foolish to hope? Can words accomplish anything against the incredible power of scholars to suppress all debate? Can the stranglehold of religion on historical studies ever be broken? Only time will tell.
Leon Zitzer
You hear and read a lot of stories as you go along in life. It is only when the years pass and certain stories remain with you that you can say which ones are really meaningful to you. It could have to do with the story itself or something inside you, but this is what grabs you — strongly enough so that many years later, you cannot forget it.
For me, one of these is a Hasidic story about the Baal Shem Tov and his assistant. They have been kidnapped by a demon or magic power and transported to a strange land. Their memory has been taken from them. They do not know who they are, where they are, their names, or what culture they come from. I cannot remember whether they have also been deprived of their belief in God or whether God is someone they still know and care about. I seem to recall they are aware of their predicament. They know they once had memories they have now been shorn of and are distraught over it.
They constantly question each other and try to drag up some remembrance from things past, but to no avail. Finally, it was the assistant, I believe, who says he remembers the alphabet — aleph, bet, gimmel, daled ... (A,B,C,D ...). "Good," says the Baal Shem. "Let us chant the alphabet over and over again." They do so. They pour into it all the enthusiasm they used to put into their prayers. Over and over. And then the magic, evil spell is broken and they are back in their home community.
It's not hard to see why I or anyone would love this story. It's about hope. When you're down and out, it ain't over. When everything has been taken from you, when you have nothing, something good can still happen. There is a way back. We love that. I love it. Hope is part of the human condition. Maybe it is the human condition par excellent. Even when it is absolutely ridiculous to have any hope, we will continue hoping. We need it to live, just to survive another day. But if this is all there was to the story, I would not like it as much as I do.
I like it because it is more specific than the general suggestion to keep hope alive. The danger that they are in is a very specific kind of danger. Their memories have been stolen. They have been robbed of their culture. Their history and the history of their people have been erased for them. This is a danger for many peoples, not just Jews. What can we do about it? How to defeat it?
The answer in the story is a little less specific, but it's not a general answer of just hold on. They go back to something fundamental (which is what I take the alphabet to represent), and they pursue it with all their passion. Now I suppose you could say that it is about prayer, that prayer is the answer. They chant the alphabet as if they were praying. So prayer can save you? Yes. But prayer takes many different forms.
The story actually tells us that you don't have to pray the traditional prayers in order to reach God. You can pray another way. A fundamental way. What is prayer? And what does prayer accomplish here?
Remember: Their culture and their history have been erased. You can beat that. You can beat the powers that want to do this to you (and one thing the story does not tell us is that the powers that do this are very human and not demons at all). God will help you. But you are going to have to put your whole heart into it. This will not happen without your devotion. Reach for something basic and hold onto it with all your heart and soul.
But what is that fundamental thing? That's where the story does not give an answer. For John Berger, poetry is prayer. Talking about injustice is prayer. (See his truly wonderful essay "The Hour of Poetry", probably available in any retrospective selection of his essays.) I'd go with that. For me, to talk with great accuracy about injustice, and historical injustice, in particular, is a form of prayer. As Berger recognizes, "To break the silence of events, to speak of experience however bitter or lacerating, to put into words, is to discover the hope that these words may be heard, and that when heard, the events will be judged. This hope is, of course, at the origin of prayer ..."
Sometimes, I think that if I just chant the accomplishments of the Pharisees over and over, this will somehow cause a breakthrough. Constitutional government, due process, justice, peace, open debate with God. This was Jesus' real historical context. If I constantly repeat them, maybe historical Jesus scholars will finally get it and release the Pharisees and Jesus from the captivity they've been placed in. Historical Jesus scholars are obsessed with Temple, rituals, purity, and have imprisoned the Pharisees and Jesus in their own scholarly obsessions. Can chanting release them? Is it foolish to hope? Can words accomplish anything against the incredible power of scholars to suppress all debate? Can the stranglehold of religion on historical studies ever be broken? Only time will tell.
Leon Zitzer
Saturday, January 31, 2009
THE GOSPELS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, SCHOLARS ARE THE PROBLEM
These days, everyone, at least among historical Jesus scholars, wants to demonstrate their anti-antisemitism credentials. The most popular way for scholars to do this is to blame somebody else for any ongoing problems. That someone else is usually the Gospel authors. New Testament scholars establish themselves as being free of prejudice by being quick to condemn any anti-Jewish passages in the Gospels. They seem to be saying, "We can identify severely anti-Jewish statements in the Gospels and we totally reject them. This proves we are good people."
Not quite. To really prove that you are opposed to any anti-Jewish interpretations of the history in the Gospels, you have to do a lot more than just renounce some of the more blatant anti-Jewishness. You have to be able to see all the pro-Jewish evidence in the Gospels and discuss its significance. Failing to do this creates an inordinately slanted picture that makes the Gospels appear to be more anti-Jewish than they actually are. It is a rather odd spectacle to see so many historical Jesus scholars vigorously denounce anti-Jewishness in the Gospels, while they ignore all the pro-Jewish evidence. In fact, most scholars exaggerate how much anti-Jewishness there is in the New Testament in order to make themselves look better when they renounce it.
But they do more than just exaggerate. They take evidence that is neutral and spin it in a negative direction. They are really inventing the negativity. If you take evidence which is ambiguous and interpret it in a way that is hostile to Jews, then where is the anti-Jewishness? In you or in the Gospels?
If anyone is serious about promoting objective study of the evidence, you have to be prepared to correctly note four important things: 1) The unequivocally negative statements about Jewish figures in the Gospels are few and far between; 2) there is much positive information and this must be brought to everyone's attention; 3) a lot more of the evidence is highly ambiguous which does not definitely lean in any direction; and 4) this ambiguous evidence has been misrepresented by a majority of scholars as being solely negative; scholars have automatically assumed something bad regarding Jews even where the evidence says nothing of the kind.
But you won't find such clarity in the writing of any New Testament scholars. Instead, they create confusion, explaining things in a way that is always slanted against Jews. Then they condemn the anti-Jewishness which they themselves invented and use this to "prove" their own good intentions. What is this!? I mean really! If you erase or ignore or rewrite so much evidence that could put Jesus' Jewish contemporaries in a better light, your intentions cannot be all that good. By omitting all the positive information and misrepresenting the ambiguous stuff, scholars are in fact fostering a very biased picture of ancient Judaism. If this proves anything, it is that scholars are afflicted with deep prejudice, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.
At this point, I would normally give examples of what I mean by this variety of evidence. And I do in my book The Ghost in the Gospels. But it has been my experience that no one cares about the evidence. New Testament scholarship is about ideas, preconceived ideas, not the evidence. For example. everyone starts with the idea of Jesus being surrounded by lethal Jewish enemies. The evidence is irrelevant. Such ideas make scholars see negative evidence about Jesus' enemies even where the text says no such thing. And these same scholars claim they are free of prejudice. They blame the Gospels for stimulating antisemitism.
The truth is: The fault is in scholars. You cannot blame the Gospels for the mess that scholars continue to create. Forget any idea that New Testament or historical Jesus studies will gradually improve. It has never happened in any field that prejudice was removed without a hard struggle to accomplish it and the bitter controversy that goes along with such a fight. It won't happen in this field either, until scholars begin to see and debate the depth of prejudice we are dealing with.
Leon Zitzer
These days, everyone, at least among historical Jesus scholars, wants to demonstrate their anti-antisemitism credentials. The most popular way for scholars to do this is to blame somebody else for any ongoing problems. That someone else is usually the Gospel authors. New Testament scholars establish themselves as being free of prejudice by being quick to condemn any anti-Jewish passages in the Gospels. They seem to be saying, "We can identify severely anti-Jewish statements in the Gospels and we totally reject them. This proves we are good people."
Not quite. To really prove that you are opposed to any anti-Jewish interpretations of the history in the Gospels, you have to do a lot more than just renounce some of the more blatant anti-Jewishness. You have to be able to see all the pro-Jewish evidence in the Gospels and discuss its significance. Failing to do this creates an inordinately slanted picture that makes the Gospels appear to be more anti-Jewish than they actually are. It is a rather odd spectacle to see so many historical Jesus scholars vigorously denounce anti-Jewishness in the Gospels, while they ignore all the pro-Jewish evidence. In fact, most scholars exaggerate how much anti-Jewishness there is in the New Testament in order to make themselves look better when they renounce it.
But they do more than just exaggerate. They take evidence that is neutral and spin it in a negative direction. They are really inventing the negativity. If you take evidence which is ambiguous and interpret it in a way that is hostile to Jews, then where is the anti-Jewishness? In you or in the Gospels?
If anyone is serious about promoting objective study of the evidence, you have to be prepared to correctly note four important things: 1) The unequivocally negative statements about Jewish figures in the Gospels are few and far between; 2) there is much positive information and this must be brought to everyone's attention; 3) a lot more of the evidence is highly ambiguous which does not definitely lean in any direction; and 4) this ambiguous evidence has been misrepresented by a majority of scholars as being solely negative; scholars have automatically assumed something bad regarding Jews even where the evidence says nothing of the kind.
But you won't find such clarity in the writing of any New Testament scholars. Instead, they create confusion, explaining things in a way that is always slanted against Jews. Then they condemn the anti-Jewishness which they themselves invented and use this to "prove" their own good intentions. What is this!? I mean really! If you erase or ignore or rewrite so much evidence that could put Jesus' Jewish contemporaries in a better light, your intentions cannot be all that good. By omitting all the positive information and misrepresenting the ambiguous stuff, scholars are in fact fostering a very biased picture of ancient Judaism. If this proves anything, it is that scholars are afflicted with deep prejudice, no matter how much they protest to the contrary.
At this point, I would normally give examples of what I mean by this variety of evidence. And I do in my book The Ghost in the Gospels. But it has been my experience that no one cares about the evidence. New Testament scholarship is about ideas, preconceived ideas, not the evidence. For example. everyone starts with the idea of Jesus being surrounded by lethal Jewish enemies. The evidence is irrelevant. Such ideas make scholars see negative evidence about Jesus' enemies even where the text says no such thing. And these same scholars claim they are free of prejudice. They blame the Gospels for stimulating antisemitism.
The truth is: The fault is in scholars. You cannot blame the Gospels for the mess that scholars continue to create. Forget any idea that New Testament or historical Jesus studies will gradually improve. It has never happened in any field that prejudice was removed without a hard struggle to accomplish it and the bitter controversy that goes along with such a fight. It won't happen in this field either, until scholars begin to see and debate the depth of prejudice we are dealing with.
Leon Zitzer
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
WHY HISTORICAL JESUS SCHOLARSHIP IS A THEOLOGICAL FIELD
Actually, I am not going to go over this in detail or offer the profoundest reasons. On previous posts, I have spelled out how anti-historical everyone is when they discuss Judas or any Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus. Blaming some Jews is a theological point with scholars and not the result of paying attention to the details in the Gospels.
What I want to offer here are 4 compelling signs (just signs) that historical Jesus studies is mired in theology and has little to no interest in genuine historical discovery:
1) Probably the most interesting historical discovery in recent decades was made by Shlomo Pines in 1971. He discovered another version of Josephus' passage on Jesus. It was preserved by a Chrisitian author, Agapius, writing in Arabic in the 10th century. It is one century older than our oldest Greek copies of Josephus' testimony about Jesus. The Greek version has long been suspected of being tampered with by Christian clerics. It has things in it that Josephus would never have said, like calling Jesus the Messiah and saying he rose from the dead. The Agapius version is missing these later Christian emendations. Thus, in the Arabic, Josephus only says that Jesus' followers reported they saw him 3 days after his crucifixion. A much more believable statement coming from Josephus.
Here is the really interesting thing. In the Greek, Josephus blames Jewish leaders in part for the death of Jesus, but in the Arabic, he says no such thing. He lays the blame solely on Pontius Pilate. Yet there are still so many scholars who never even mention the Agapius Josephus, though it is a century older than the Greek. To name a few, Paula Fredriksen, John Crossan, and E.P. Sanders discuss only the Greek and never even mention the existence of another version. That is because the Arabic version does not fit their theology of blaming Jewish leaders.
Such a thing could not happen in any other field. It is impossible to imagine that American historians would not discuss a never-before-seen draft of the Declaration of Independence, if such a document were ever discovered. But this is exactly the kind of thing that happens in New Testament scholarship, if anything is found that would help overturn the theological idea that Jesus was surrounded and done in by Jewish enemies. Scholars today may promote this myth with politeness and smiles, but it is still a myth (i.e., the evidence does not support it).
2) From the 14th century, we have a Hebrew version of Matthew, preserved by Shem Tob ben- Isaac ben Shaprut. George Howard has done the most work on this and provides the Hebrew with an English translation and comments in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1995). Howard gives excellent reasons in follow-up articles why this likely stems from an original version of Matthew and not from a translation into Hebrew from the Greek. One of the most interesting things about it are all the Hebrew word games which Jesus plays, a favorite activity of the rabbis. I cannot find any mainstream historical Jesus scholar who acknowledges the existence of this document. That is because their theology is to stay as far as possible from the Jewish Jesus.
3) If a book as prejudiced as William Arnal's The Symbolic Jesus (2005) were published in any other field, like, say, anthropology, there would be a huge outcry. Some would defend Arnal, but many more would strongly object. But in historical Jesus studies, there is not even a whimper of protest. Examples of his prejudice: He uses words like "rigid" and "obsessively" to characterize what he calls traditional Judaism, but he never uses any negative words for Greek culture; he makes it clear that he prefers a Jesus closer to Greek culture than to Jewish culture: he complains about those who would make Jesus an "honorary Jew", his euphemism for too Jewish or too rabbinic; he makes one disparaging reference to Jesus as rabbi; otherwise, he is completely silent about Pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism (they do not exist in Arnal's book); he harps on Temple, rituals, purity concerns (or various such assortments) as the identity markers of 1st century Judaism; he never considers spirituality, peace, justice as the main elements of ancient Jewish culture; he gives only a depleted and prejudiced picture of Judaism. It is an outrageously prejudiced book. His goal is to make sure prejudiced scholarship remains firmly in place. Yet everyone is silent because it more or less fits the theology of every scholar.
In general, NT scholars are obsessed with making ancient Judaism revolve around rituals, Temple, purity, etc. They pick only the most superficial things and avoid ancient Jewish culture's deep commitment to peace, justice, due process, and more. As I have pointed out in my book The Ghost in the Gospels, it is impossible to walk away from any book by a historical Jesus scholar and come away with a positive impression of ancient Judaism. Arnal's book is no exception. It is filled with a negative theological approach towards Judaism and no one will say a word about it.
4) So many scholars still talk of "Law" and "observance of the Law" as one of the themes of historical Jesus research. "Law" (still used by scholars who should know better!) is of course a mistranslation of Torah, but it is still in use. "Observance" is another category to prejudice scholars in the direction of legalism as the burning issue. "Law" and "Observance" are Christian theological categories that have nothing to do with Jewish history or culture and nothing to do with the Gospels. Historical Jesus scholars are virtually clueless about the place of Torah in ancient Jewish life and what the word really means. Jewish culture is inadmissible in their theology.
Leon Zitzer
Actually, I am not going to go over this in detail or offer the profoundest reasons. On previous posts, I have spelled out how anti-historical everyone is when they discuss Judas or any Jewish complicity in the death of Jesus. Blaming some Jews is a theological point with scholars and not the result of paying attention to the details in the Gospels.
What I want to offer here are 4 compelling signs (just signs) that historical Jesus studies is mired in theology and has little to no interest in genuine historical discovery:
1) Probably the most interesting historical discovery in recent decades was made by Shlomo Pines in 1971. He discovered another version of Josephus' passage on Jesus. It was preserved by a Chrisitian author, Agapius, writing in Arabic in the 10th century. It is one century older than our oldest Greek copies of Josephus' testimony about Jesus. The Greek version has long been suspected of being tampered with by Christian clerics. It has things in it that Josephus would never have said, like calling Jesus the Messiah and saying he rose from the dead. The Agapius version is missing these later Christian emendations. Thus, in the Arabic, Josephus only says that Jesus' followers reported they saw him 3 days after his crucifixion. A much more believable statement coming from Josephus.
Here is the really interesting thing. In the Greek, Josephus blames Jewish leaders in part for the death of Jesus, but in the Arabic, he says no such thing. He lays the blame solely on Pontius Pilate. Yet there are still so many scholars who never even mention the Agapius Josephus, though it is a century older than the Greek. To name a few, Paula Fredriksen, John Crossan, and E.P. Sanders discuss only the Greek and never even mention the existence of another version. That is because the Arabic version does not fit their theology of blaming Jewish leaders.
Such a thing could not happen in any other field. It is impossible to imagine that American historians would not discuss a never-before-seen draft of the Declaration of Independence, if such a document were ever discovered. But this is exactly the kind of thing that happens in New Testament scholarship, if anything is found that would help overturn the theological idea that Jesus was surrounded and done in by Jewish enemies. Scholars today may promote this myth with politeness and smiles, but it is still a myth (i.e., the evidence does not support it).
2) From the 14th century, we have a Hebrew version of Matthew, preserved by Shem Tob ben- Isaac ben Shaprut. George Howard has done the most work on this and provides the Hebrew with an English translation and comments in Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (1995). Howard gives excellent reasons in follow-up articles why this likely stems from an original version of Matthew and not from a translation into Hebrew from the Greek. One of the most interesting things about it are all the Hebrew word games which Jesus plays, a favorite activity of the rabbis. I cannot find any mainstream historical Jesus scholar who acknowledges the existence of this document. That is because their theology is to stay as far as possible from the Jewish Jesus.
3) If a book as prejudiced as William Arnal's The Symbolic Jesus (2005) were published in any other field, like, say, anthropology, there would be a huge outcry. Some would defend Arnal, but many more would strongly object. But in historical Jesus studies, there is not even a whimper of protest. Examples of his prejudice: He uses words like "rigid" and "obsessively" to characterize what he calls traditional Judaism, but he never uses any negative words for Greek culture; he makes it clear that he prefers a Jesus closer to Greek culture than to Jewish culture: he complains about those who would make Jesus an "honorary Jew", his euphemism for too Jewish or too rabbinic; he makes one disparaging reference to Jesus as rabbi; otherwise, he is completely silent about Pharisaic and rabbinic Judaism (they do not exist in Arnal's book); he harps on Temple, rituals, purity concerns (or various such assortments) as the identity markers of 1st century Judaism; he never considers spirituality, peace, justice as the main elements of ancient Jewish culture; he gives only a depleted and prejudiced picture of Judaism. It is an outrageously prejudiced book. His goal is to make sure prejudiced scholarship remains firmly in place. Yet everyone is silent because it more or less fits the theology of every scholar.
In general, NT scholars are obsessed with making ancient Judaism revolve around rituals, Temple, purity, etc. They pick only the most superficial things and avoid ancient Jewish culture's deep commitment to peace, justice, due process, and more. As I have pointed out in my book The Ghost in the Gospels, it is impossible to walk away from any book by a historical Jesus scholar and come away with a positive impression of ancient Judaism. Arnal's book is no exception. It is filled with a negative theological approach towards Judaism and no one will say a word about it.
4) So many scholars still talk of "Law" and "observance of the Law" as one of the themes of historical Jesus research. "Law" (still used by scholars who should know better!) is of course a mistranslation of Torah, but it is still in use. "Observance" is another category to prejudice scholars in the direction of legalism as the burning issue. "Law" and "Observance" are Christian theological categories that have nothing to do with Jewish history or culture and nothing to do with the Gospels. Historical Jesus scholars are virtually clueless about the place of Torah in ancient Jewish life and what the word really means. Jewish culture is inadmissible in their theology.
Leon Zitzer
