Thursday, December 29, 2016
JEWISH ANNOTATIONS
I
have long thought that a Jewish annotated New Testament, or at least for the
Gospels, is badly needed. What is currently out there does not measure up.
After all, the historical context for these texts is ancient Jewish society.
The Gospel authors took it for granted that their audience would know certain
things, or if they did not assume this, they were still writing from a base of
knowledge. It is exceptionally enlightening to see what they knew, even if they
did not spell it out. Here are just a few suggestions for these annotations.
Jesus/Joshua
– His name is obviously one thing we need reminding about. It was Yehoshua in
Hebrew and this had become shortened to Yeshua in his time. It was a common
name. “Jesus is coming to town” did not have any special ring to it. It was
like saying “Joe is coming to town.” To his contemporaries, this would have
caused people to say “Who is Joe?” or “Which Joe are you talking about?” The
name Jesus has a lot of assumptions built into it, which falsify history. “Did
Jesus threaten the Temple?” is a biased question because the answer is already
in the name Jesus. “Did Joshua threaten the Temple?” allows for clearer
thinking.
Mark14:63
–The high priest tears his robes – Josephus gives a couple examples of the high
priest doing this and/or pouring ashes over his head. These were acts of
mourning and they were used to persuade someone in an argument. They were not acts
of condemnation. It is just one sign that Jewish leaders were not putting Jesus
on trial. Something a lot more informal and friendly was going on.
Mark
14:59 – Their testimony did not agree; and in preceding verses, false witness
is mentioned – This seems to be a reference to a Jewish trial rule that if
witness testimony conflicted, this evidence should be dismissed. This would
provide an opportunity to discuss the Mishnah trial rules. Perhaps not all were
in effect in the 1st century, but at least some of them were. They
were profoundly humane rules, many of them favoring the defendant, and none of
them (except this one on testimony not agreeing) have anything to do with this
meeting between Jesus and Jewish leaders. It is another sign that this was an
informal meeting and not a trial.
Matt
5:9 –Blessed are the peacemakers – A note on this verse should provide
information on how important peace was to Jews, especially to the Pharisees. In
Jewish folklore, Aaron, brother of Moses, had the reputation of being a
peacemaker. Shemaiah and Avtalyon, two Pharisaic teachers, who preceded Hillel,
spoke about peace as a supreme Jewish value. These are the things that would
have been going through the minds of the audience members when Jesus was
speaking.
Matt
20:16 –The first and the last – I found a similar saying in rabbinic
literature, only the rabbi spoke of the near and the far. Every verse in the
Gospels which has a rabbinic counterpart should be noted. Only by such means
can Jesus’s full Jewishness be appreciated. The reason why no one has explored
all this is that they are afraid Jesus will become too Jewish, as if being
Jewish were an inferior way of being. I have sometimes found people are very
disturbed to hear that Jesus spoke about chutzpah,
which was an Aramaic word (it was adopted into Yiddish from Aramaic). The
Gospels are richer with Jewishness than anyone realizes.
©
2016 Leon Zitzer
