At the 2011 SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco, there are two parallel sessions (Nov. 20) highlighting Jewish involvement in Jesus scholarship: book discussions will be on “The Jewish Jesus: Revelation, Reflection, Reclamation (Purdue University Press)” and perspectives on “The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford University Press).”
There is a heavy focus on the use of midrash by the New Testament writers in these two books. The conservative Christian community might not respond very well. And there is a question of interpretation. Editor Amy-Jill Levine says, for example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and rewrote it using Jesus as the central character?
Somebody will have to point out the parallels between Moses and Jesus birth tales because they are not immediately obvious to me. But Matthew did raid the OT shamelessly (and none too honestly) to connect Jesus with the OT, so I suppose it’s possible he mangled the Moses story out of immediate recognition for the same reason. But I can’t see significant similarities myself.
Somebody will have to point out the parallels between Moses and Jesus birth tales because they are not immediately obvious to me. But Matthew did raid the OT shamelessly (and none too honestly) to connect Jesus with the OT, so I suppose it’s possible he mangled the Moses story out of immediate recognition for the same reason. But I can’t see significant similarities myself.
Just do a google search and input “Jesus Matthew Moses Nativity John Dominic Crossan.” John Shelby Spong also talks about it. Here is an article (for what it’s worth) on the subject: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
Here are some endorsements The Jewish Annotated New Testament is getting:
” This exciting collection by leading Jewish scholars not only annotates the New Testament but also brings out its themes, context, and interpretation over the centuries. Essential for libraries of scholars in Christian-Jewish studies, academic institutions offering degrees in theology, and dialogue groups at all levels.”—Dr. Eugene J. Fisher, Distinguished Professor of Catholic-Jewish Studies, Saint Leo University; Former Associate Director, Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
” One volume must find its way to seminarians, preachers, and other students of Scripture: The Jewish Annotated New Testament. With insightful essays and page-by-page notes and sidebars on each book, this volume fills a huge gap in the world of biblical interpretation, providing an accessible guide to how this most Jewish document from antiquity is understood by Jewish scholars today.”—The Rev. William Brosend, School of Theology, Sewanee, TN and Executive Director, Episcopal Preaching Foundation
I think there may be some dangers here these gentlemen don’t realize. Christianity may be more in danger from an internal Jewish deconstruction than militant atheism.
There is a heavy focus on the use of midrash by the New Testament writers in these two books. The conservative Christian community might not respond very well. And there is a question of interpretation. Editor Amy-Jill Levine says, for example, Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and rewrote it using Jesus as the central character?
I emailed the other editor of “The Jewish Annotated New Testament,” Dr. Marc Brettler, and asked the following question: “Dr. Amy-Jill Levine says Matthew’s Jesus infancy story recapitulates the story of Moses. Does this mean (1) the author of Matthew started with facts about Jesus and then added material to make it resemble the account of Moses, or (2) The author of Matthew started with the account in the Old Testament about Moses and then rewrote it using Jesus as the central character?” Dr. Brettler kindly emailed me back his response and said “You are asking a hard and sophisticated question. Your two possibilities represent two poles of possibility, with lots of room in between. I don’t know that we have enough information to answer that specific question—sorry.” So I pointed out to him that the issue of “Midrash and the New Testament” seems to pose a bit of a problem when we are trying to get information about the historical Jesus.
I just got an email from Dr. Alan Avery-Peck, who is one of the international team of scholars who worked on The Jewish Annotated New Testament. He said “In general, I believe that Professor Robert M. Price has it right in his article New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash and that The Jewish Annotated New Testament carries the matter forward in a fruitful direction.” This upcoming annual meeting of The Society of Biblical Literature is a catastrophe just waiting to happen.
AFAIK the notion that Jesus was a Jewish preacher is pretty much consensus within contemporary university-level biblical studies. Scholars like E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman discuss it frequently. The notion of a Christian religion separate from Judaism post-dates Jesus by decades at least.
The Jesus in the Bible was Jewish so the “Jewish” Jesus has come and gone.
Right, but the point is he saw himself as a specifically Jewish prophet, preaching to the Jewish people, in the line of the latter OT prophets. He didn’t see himself as founding a new religion, but rather as bringing Judaism back to its roots (again, like the later OT prophets), nor did he see himself as preaching to non-Jews. There would have been little point in converting the masses anyhow as he thought the kingdom of God would occur within the lifetimes of his followers.
AFAIK the notion that Jesus was a Jewish preacher is pretty much consensus within contemporary university-level biblical studies. Scholars like E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman discuss it frequently. The notion of a Christian religion separate from Judaism post-dates Jesus by decades at least.
You can explain “midrash” to my devoted Catholic grandmother.
sounds like an interesting read from Jewish perspective, just finished Alfred Edersheim book which brought to life the Jewish traditions and law prior to Jesus and during his ministry.
Closest translation of “Midrash” is “morality tale”.
Occam
Here is my version of the “morality tale”:
Dr. Marc Brettler says that “Midrash” as a genre of writing in the New Testament presents an interesting problem. There are two poles of interpretation, with a lot of room in between. On one end, we could argue that in a midrash narrative like Matthew’s Jesus infancy account the gospel writer started with information about the historical Jesus and then added some material to make it seem like the story about Moses from the Old Testament. On the other end, we could say that the gospel writer simply wanted to rewrite a story from the old Testament and apply it to his times, in which case there is no reason to think there is any reliable information about the historical Jesus at all in the midrash narrative. And there is a lot of room between these two poles. Dr. Brettler says that when we present the problem in this way, it becomes a hard and sophisticated problem to try to determine what part of the midrash narrative (if any) presents information about the historical Jesus. This is the problem that comes up when the issue of “Midrash” is introduced as a New Testament genre. The question is: What criteria or method do we use to determine which part of the “Midrash” narrative is giving us information about the historical Jesus? Can we assume that any part of the “Midrash” narrative is representing the historical Jesus? If the midrash narrative says that Jesus did “such and such,” does this mean the historical Jesus actually did it, or was this characterization of Jesus just the author’s way of rewriting the Old Testament story (and the historical Jesus never did it)? Even if a part of the narrative is actually representing the historical Jesus, how could we know that? This is why “Midrash” as a literary genre seems to make reconstructing the historical Jesus more problematic in my eyes. It looks like one big mess. Good luck in sorting this all out
The “moral” is: I have better things to do with my time than trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus.
Ok, how can we construct the “historical Jesus” with just one source? Even the gospels, beginning with Mark differ on Jesus’ life. I could “for instance” but there are numerous sources that you could use. Crossan’s works are most helpful here. You might start with his History of Christianity. Even the one quote that supposedly mentions Jesus found in Josephus’s work has now been attributed to a later scholar’s attempt to legitimize Jesus’ existence. Not much scholarly writing in the first Century concerning Jesus or his followers. So far, no one has found any Roman or Greek writing even mentioning his life. I do look forward to reading the Jewish approach though.
Ok, how can we construct the “historical Jesus” with just one source? Even the gospels, beginning with Mark differ on Jesus’ life. I could “for instance” but there are numerous sources that you could use. Crossan’s works are most helpful here. You might start with his History of Christianity. Even the one quote that supposedly mentions Jesus found in Josephus’s work has now been attributed to a later scholar’s attempt to legitimize Jesus’ existence. Not much scholarly writing in the first Century concerning Jesus or his followers. So far, no one has found any Roman or Greek writing even mentioning his life. I do look forward to reading the Jewish approach though.
Well, first of all we don’t typically have problems constructing historical people from one source. Evidence is evidence. Secondly, the Bible isn’t really ‘one source’; as a single text it’s a construct of several different sources. IIRC scholars have pointed to three or four different authors. These authors differ in certain crucial respects, but not in all respects. If you read a book like EP Sanders’s Historical Figure of Jesus you’ll get at least one scholarly attempt to deal with the evidence in (what seems to me generally) a reasonable manner. For instance, he doesn’t deal with the miracle elements at all, he assumes all that is basically historically worthless. (Or he leaves it to religious faith to deal with, which is to say the same thing).
The historical trustworthiness of the Christian Gospels is an important issue for the Catholic Church. Vatican II restated (1965) the Church’s enduring conviction: the New Testament Gospels faithfully transmit the historical truth about Jesus, his teaching, and his mighty works (Dei Verbum, 19).
Unless I’m reading these wrong, on the issue of Matthew’s Jesus infancy account, we have 2 conflicting ways of interpreting the bible:
1. John Dominic Crossan, in his essay “Virgin Mother or Bastard Child?,” in the section “Moses and Midrash,” says that “In the ancient world, an infancy story was often a life’s overture and, where little was known about a protagonist’s conception and birth, they could be invented on that principle. In Matthew 5-7 Jesus would appear as a new Moses giving a new Torah from a new Mount Sinai. What, then, could be more appropriate than to create an infancy story for Jesus modeled on that of Moses? And, also in that ancient world, where the old was good and the new suspect, new meant the old renewed and not replaced.”
2. In The (Catholic) Ignatius Study Bible, it says “Matthew 1-2 is stylistically different from midrash. Unlike midrash, the evangelist’s story of Jesus is not founded on an Old testament text. Whereas midrash seeks to mine deeper meanings of the Old Testament, Matthew does not seek to interpret the Old testament for its own sake. More to the point, Matthew is not retelling Old Testament episodes but is telling an entirely new story! It is a story with new characters and events; it is a story that could stand on its own apart from his Old Testament citations. Matthew employs the Old Testament to illuminate the significance of Jesus’ birth, not to determine in advance its plot and outcome.”
I must be understanding this wrong because John Dominic Crossan seems to be saying the opposite of what the Catholics are saying.
The Catholics seem convinced about the historical reliability of the New Testament.
They are also convinced that priests are not allowed to marry homosexual couples.
