Readers Reply

004

Every One a Gem

I have been an avid reader of both BR and BAR since their beginnings. As a leader of Bible studies for laypersons I have found them to be invaluable for my understanding and preparation. The December issue of BR provokes my letter now. Every article was a gem, especially Stephen Patterson’s My View, “Bridging the Gulf Between Bible Scholarship and Religious Faith,” BR 06:06. Thanks, and keep up the excellent work.

We Are Not on Reader’s Digest Level

Three cheers for Stephen J. Patterson and his article, “Bridging the Gulf Between Bible Scholarship and Religious Faith,” BR 06:06. However, I do not think that more intellectual openness to biblical scholarship would be received as hostilely as he thinks. Indeed, the opposite is true. Studies indicate that “mainline worshippers are not storming out of their fellowships in righteous anger … but instead are simply drifting away in apathy” (The Presbyterian Outlook, Nov. 5, 1990, p. 4). I see people with a deep commitment to God leaving the church because they are bored. So a more intellectual presentation of how to read the Bible, rather than dealing a fatal blow to the church, just might be our last hope for new life!

Most Protestant denominational publishers seem to think we are all at the Reader’s Digest level. So a start might be for a publisher to come out with a Bible study curriculum on the intellectual level of Bible Review. I think it would sell like hot cakes!

Bridging the Gap

I appreciated Stephen Patterson’s My View, “Bridging the Gulf Between Bible Scholarship and Religious Faith,” BR 06:06. I too am frustrated by the gulf between biblical scholarship and what is acceptable teaching to the laity in the churches.

Yet, when scholars wonder why pastors are hesitant to “share” their academic insights with their people, they need simply read your Readers Reply column! I am always amazed at the vitriolic attacks launched against your authors. Imagine facing that in person in a Sunday school class! It would be hard enough if an anonymous person considered you an apostate, but what about your parishioner?

I believe that a magazine like yours is just what we need in the effort to “bridge the gulf between Bible scholarship and religious faith.” I appreciate that your scholarly authors are willing to communicate their ideas succinctly and in language comprehensible to nonspecialists. And I commend them for risking the ire of your readers by writing for a wider audience than an obscure professional journal. Thank you for stimulating and challenging material every issue.

Faith Infected by Doubt

Stephen J. Patterson (“Bridging the Gulf Between Bible Scholarship and Religious Faith,” BR 06:06) adopts a condescending tone in his reply to Jim Roth (Readers Reply, BR 06:06). Patterson is in effect saying, “Now, now, we scholars know what we’re doing. Trust us.”

Dr. Patterson is afflicted with a certain functional blindness if he sees no philosophical or ideological bias in modern scholarship. What many call the “weight of scholarship” is the snowballing of opinion and conjecture, piling theory upon theory and then saying, “Most scholars agree.” But when did truth become subject to majority rule?

Consider C. H. Dodd’s picture of an upside-down pyramid, balanced on its point: an immense construct based upon few narrow assumptions. The whole structure stands or falls upon those few assumptions. Those assumptions are, in most modern scholarship, 005anti-super-natural, anti-literal and anti-historical Jesus.

Bultmann’s work on the Gospels is a case in point. He begins with the assumptions (or presuppositions), to name a few, that: (1) we cannot know the historical Jesus through the Gospels; (2) Jesus, if he existed, did not claim to be the Son of God; (3) Jesus, if he existed, was a reformer of Judaism and a prophet in the sense of calling God to people’s attention, not a salvific or divine figure; (4) Jesus if he existed, did not call for salvation in the literal sense of the New Testament, but called people to an existential decision for or against God (which only seems nebulous because it is); (5) the stories and sayings of the Gospels were “mythologized,” meaning that a bare-bones saying was put into a fictional setting based upon literary forms (hence form criticism). Bultmann considers only a few of the sayings attributed to Jesus to be possibly authentic, based on his criteria. His conclusions are in fact based upon his presuppositions and his personal ideology (existentialism), and that is circular reasoning and pitiful scholarship.

An existentialist (God-realization) Christianity apart from biblical authority is the last resort of faith for those infected by doubt. This is due to the destructive nature of modern scholarship. Sadly, most Bible critics today begin with doubt and end with confusion and doubt in their conclusions. Bible Review has unfortunately given the greatest voice to those in this tradition.

The Two Faces of Jacob Neusner

In the December 1990 issue of Bible Review (see “How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06), Professor Jacob Neusner characterizes my book, Jesus the Jew (Fortress, 1981), as “unfortunate,” and its portrait of Jesus as a wonder-working Galilean healer and teacher as “a total fabrication, a misreading of the Gospels and a distortion of the rabbinic evidence.”

For the record, may I be permitted to point out that in another journal the same book is called “magnificent,” the comparison of Jesus with the charismatic Honi and Hanina, “apt and accurate,“ the argument “pellucid,” “sound,” “carefully worked out with full and requisite attention to the varieties of Judaism, the strata of rabbinic literature, the entire range of the critical problems important in contemporary New Testament scholarship,” etc., etc., etc. (Midstream, Dec. 1974, pp. 70–71).

The author?

None other than the same Jacob Neusner.

How Jews View Christians

You have published many controversial articles before (which I enjoy), but “How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06, was the first to prompt me to respond. Jacob Neusner made several assumptions which I cannot let stand alone.

1. Mr. Neusner wrote as though all Christians have similar doctrines. He does not recognize the large variety of Christian denominations as being, in many cases, radically different from each other. I would say the differences between the various Christian denominations are as significant as the dissimilarities he sees between Judaism and 006Christianity as a whole.

2. Mr. Neusner interprets the incident with Christ and the money changers far differently than I perceive it. The money changers, while indeed providing a necessary service, had intentionally used the sacred Temple as a place to make a profit. The implications are far-reaching. Many clergymen today, under the guise of offering salvation, actually have personal gain as their motive. Christ was condemning those who profit in this manner.

3. Mr. Neusner is aware that many Christians do not worship Mary, the mother of Christ, or Pray to her. However, he went ahead and dealt at length with this issue. To many Christians, the point he finally made was moot.

On a positive note, I did appreciate reading how Jews view Christians. Also, Mr. Neusner brought up topics I have never questioned before, such as Mary and her friends caring for Christ’s body.

I enjoy BR and BAR. Keep doing what you do best-publishing a wide variety of articles that are of great interest to open-minded people of all religions.

Was Jesus’ Purging of the Temple Marketplace Incomprehensible?

Professor Neusner’s provocative article, “How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06, starts off with a position that I have to agree with, having had many interfaith discussions with Christians. However, as I continued reading I found myself rapidly coming to different conclusions, and in the end found myself in closer agreement with Andrew Greeley (“The Jewish God Is Also the Christian God,” sidebar to “How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06) than with Neusner.

First, as Neusner points out, Jews and Christians start with many more differences of perspective than it seems at first glance. We may read the same books of the Hebrew Bible, but Jews read it in the light of the Oral Torah, while Christians read it in the light of the New Testament. Thus, for example, Jews call Abraham’s offering of Isaac “The Binding of Isaac” (Isaac was not sacrificed), while Christians call it “The Sacrifice of Isaac” (this sacrifice of a son by his father prefigures the sacrifice of a son by His Father).

Neusner has made a very fruitful suggestion that we recognize those differences, and then search for different elements which hold parallel positions in the two religions. He gave a very beautiful example of comparing mother Mary in Christianity with mother Rachel in Judaism. I quickly thought of comparing Elijah not just with John the Baptist but also with St. Nicholas who visits all Christian households—as Elijah visits all Jewish households. And Jesus has combined at least five roles found in Judaism:

1. Messiah (the role of messiah in Judaism is both more limited, being thoroughly human, and more varied, for Saul, David, Solomon and Joash were all anointed ones of the Lord);

2. Word of God (in this respect Jews would agree with John 10:7–18, which states that humans can reach God only through God’s door; but Jews recognize that the covenant with Noah [Genesis 9:1–19], applying to all humanity, is also a door of God);

3. the patriarchs, through whose merit we are forgiven (here a major difference is seen: in Christianity, God demands perfect virtue, so only the sacrifice of a persona of God is sufficient; while in Judaism, God “dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” [Leviticus 16:16], and thus human intermediaries are sufficient);

4. peace offerings (in Judaism becoming a picnic with God, and thus taken over in Jewish homes, where instead of the altar “a person’s table atones for him” [Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 55a]; and in Christianity becoming the wafer that is “My body”); and

5. newborn child, who is the hope for the future.

However, Neusner exaggerates the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Neusner claims that Jews would find Jesus’ purging of the Temple marketplace incomprehensible. The pilgrims in Jerusalem must have understood Jesus’ overturning of the seats of the pigeon sellers (Mark 11:15; Matthew 21:12), and his driving out the sheep, oxen and pigeons together with the salesmen and money changers (John 2:14–15), for they acquiesced to it, and the Temple security forces did not dare to arrest Jesus on the spot. The act would have been incomprehensible only if he had driven out the money changers alone.

The act is explainable by another event that occurred 20 to 30 years later. The Mishnah states:

“Once in Jerusalem a pair of doves [for sacrificing] cost a golden denar [equaling 25 silver denars]. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said: ‘By this Temple! I will not allow the night to pass before they cost but a [silver] denar.’ He went into the [rabbinic] court and taught: If a woman suffered [even] five indisputable miscarriages or five indisputable issues [of blood], she [still] may bring [just] one offering [of a pair of doves], and she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is free of the obligation to offer anything else [for the other miscarriages or issues]. And the same day the price of doves stood at a quarter-denar” (Mishnah, Keritot).

The high priests held a monopoly in Jerusalem, deciding who could or could not sell animals in the Temple market.

“Abba Saul ben Botnit recited in the

name of Abba Joseph ben Hanin:

Oy vey, because of the house of

Boethos. Oy vey, because of their

clubs.

Oy vey, because of the house of Hanin.

Oy vey, because of their slander.

Oy vey, because of the house of

Kathros. Oy vey, because of their

pens.

Oy vey, because of the House of

Ishmael ben Piabey. Oy vey, because

of their fists.

For they are high priests, and their sons are treasurers, and their in-laws are trustees, and their servants beat the people with sticks” (Babylonian Talmud pesahim).

Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel, the leader of the Pharisees, was outraged at the price gouging in the Temple market. So, long before Adam Smith had developed the laws of economics he used the law of supply-and-demand to lower the price of the sacrifices. He taught a new ruling that allowed women to delay buying pigeons for sacrifice until close to a festival, when they had to be purified if they wished to join in the festivities. When the demand for pigeons dropped, their market price dropped.

Jesus was also outraged at the price gouging, but unlike Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel he attacked the sellers with a whip. The pilgrims who saw the attack would not have taken this to be an attack against the Temple. It was an attack against those who held the market monopoly and overcharged the pilgrims. Of course Caiphas, the high priest who held that monopoly, then decided to arrest Jesus.

Pharisaic leaders like Simeon ben Gamaliel repeatedly challenged the Sadducees who held the high priesthood 007most of the time. Gamaliel, the father of this Simeon, had saved the lives of Peter and John when the high priest of that period had arrested them and had taken them to court with the goal of putting them to death (Acts 5:17–40).

Later, when another Sadducean high priest, Hanan ben Hanan, put to death James, the brother of Jesus, the Pharisees again tried to save him, and when they were unable to stop the judicial murder, they complained sufficiently to the Roman procurator for him to have the high priest fired from his post (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20, 9. sec.1, 197–203). (Incidentally, none of the modern commentators introducing the Letter of James, and none of the writers of articles on the life of James in biblical dictionaries and encyclopedias, ever mention that the Pharisees tried to stop that murder, and then had the high priest fired. There is no way that they could have missed this information when they checked the Antiquities before writing their articles, but somehow this never appears. I wonder why.)

It is clear, then, that the Pharisees had nothing to do with the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus. They had argued with Jesus and opposed him quite often, but they did not wish him dead. The Gospels indicate this, for the Pharisees are nowhere mentioned in connection with the arrest and trial of Jesus.

Until the revolt against Rome the Pharisaic leadership considered the Jewish Christians to be a misguided group, but still their fellow Jews. Only after that revolt did they change their minds. There are probably two reasons for that change. First, the Christian Jews refused to participate in the war against the Romans. Eusebius tells us that the Jerusalem church left the country, going to Pella across the Jordan (Ecclesiastical History 3.5).

Those of us who remember the scorn felt toward the American “traitors” who went to Canada instead of fighting in Vietnam may understand the scorn felt by most of the Jews toward these “deserters.”

The second reason for condemning the Jewish Christians was the new evolution of the Christian church. The Jewish Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah, but they did not deify him. The Hellenistic Christians turned him into a god. When the Jewish Christian church subordinated itself under the international church, the Pharisees declared them to be heretics.

Based on this decision, for about ten centuries the Jews considered Christianity to be idolatry. Then Rabbi Jacob Tam (1096–1171 C.E.) reversed this decision, and concluded that Christianity was not idolatrous (Tosafot to Sanhedrin 63b, s.v. Asûr; and to Bekhorot 2b, s.v. Shema). He decided that while Jews were forbidden to associate God with any created being, such association (shittuf) was allowed for non-Jews.

This permission can be derived from the Bible. First, while Deuteronomy 4:15–24 prohibits Jews from the worship of anything which has a form, it states that such created beings are “things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven” (Deuteronomy 4:19). Second, while the ten tribes were exiled from the Holy Land because of their idolatry (2 Kings 17:7–18), the Babylonians and Cutheans who replaced them were allowed to remain even though they combined their worship of God with the worship of their earlier gods (2 Kings 17:24–41; cf. the commentary of Malbim to 2 Kings 17:28). This new view was codified in Jewish law (cf. Shulhan Arukh, Orakh Hayyim #156), and since the 12th century has been the majority view in Judaism.

Neusner and Greeley should be congratulated for helping us share in their dialogue.

Basic Biblical Texts Ignored

I must confess that I find myself thoroughly confused over the conclusions reached by Rabbi Jacob Neusner in “How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06.

Rabbi Neusner’s “radical conclusion” is that Christianity is “new and uncontingent … not as subordinate or heir to Judaism” He posits that “they. [Judaism and Christianity] are totally alien to one another.”

This flies in the face of the biblical witness itself. Rabbi Neusner does not deal with Jesus’ own professions of continuity with and contingency upon the received faith. What are we to make of Jesus’ allegiance to the Law and Prophets (Matthew 5:17–19)? How are we to understand Jesus’ self-understanding, in the context of the witness of the Law and Prophets (Luke 24:44)? Rabbi Neusner provides no insights on these major points—he merely supports his assertions by elaborating upon perplexing arcana, such as the significance of Jesus with the money changers, and the relationship of Rachel to Mary.

I think the cause of Jewish-Christian dialogue is not furthered by Rabbi Neusner’s bald assertions about the Christian faith when they fail to take into account basic biblical texts about Jesus’ self-understanding.

I love BR. Please never stop making us think.

Loving Siblings

I feel compelled to take vehement exception to Rabbi Neusner’s implication that the Jew must remain forever “alien” to the Christian (and vice-versa) (“How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06). His observation that a distinction has to be made between (the actual person) Jesus of Nazareth and the “risen Christ” of Christology is of course valid. And therefore to believe that, say, the Chief rabbi of Rome and the pope can converse comprehensibly about theological matters with one another is sheer folly (as Rabbi Neusner would be first to agree, I’m sure). There is that difference in theologies (i.e., Christian theologians subscribe to one or more Christologies; Jewish theologians have none). Having said this, however, it is worth noting that devout Christians and Jews both long for (may the day come speedily, in our time!) the advent of the Messianic Age and the coming of the Messiah (though with the difference that the Jew expects it to be for the first time, while the Christian expects it to be for the second and hopefully final time).

Be it noted moreover that this mutually longed for Golden Age is one in which thoroughly Jewish ethics and morality, Jewish “righteousness/justice”—as exemplified in Hebrew Scriptures, and as taught by Jesus himself—shall triumph on the earth! I therefore find it impossible to understand how Rabbi Neusner can make so bold as to proclaim categorically that Judaism and Christianity “… really are totally alien to one another.”

In Jesus’ justifiably famous and well-loved Sermon on the Mount (to give but one more example among many), what do we find? Jesus dispensing with the Law? Quite the contrary! Jesus is engaged in a favorite rabbinic pastime: “building a fence around Torah.” He is reinforcing the Law!! With regard to the commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” for example, Jesus says, that’s not enough: you mustn’t even hold lustful thoughts toward a woman! With regard to the commandment “Thou shalt 008not murder,” Jesus says, that’s not enough: you mustn’t even hold a grudge towards another! And so on. I see nothing alien here, nothing that has not been said and taught down the centuries by Israel’s finest rabbis, sages and saints.

With regard to Rabbi Neusner’s example of Jesus instigating a riot in the outer courtyard of the Temple, it is a poor example of an alleged total estrangement from Judaism. For one thing, we really do not know exactly what produced the riot in the outer precincts of the Temple which followed so closely upon Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem (which appears to have caused quite a stir itself). That is, we cannot be sure of Jesus’ private motive in over-throwing the money-changers’ tables, if indeed he did so. (For Jesus was well aware of their necessity, not only for the reasons cited by Rabbi Neusner, but also because the coin of the realm, bearing as it did Caesar’s image, had to be exchanged. Jesus himself wouldn’t even touch such a coin: Recall that he asked his interlocutors to show him such a coin bearing Caesar’s image.)

Perhaps Jesus was offended by the money changers coveting such Roman coins?! Or perhaps he became enraged at their cheating exchange rate. Especially suspect are the words put on his lips that “they” (Jews, of course!) had turned the Temple into a “den of thieves,” if for no other reason than that the activities taking place were not in the Temple, but in the non-sacred outer court where gentiles were permitted to gather. But even if Jesus did look upon the Temple cult with something of a jaundiced eye, so what? So did many a prophet before him and so did the Dead Sea Community.

By choosing this event as one central to his argument that Judaism and Christianity have “nothing in common” (or even more ludicrous, that Jesus really wasn’t a good Jew after all) Neusner has greatly weakened his case. A far stronger case can be made for a good deal of commonality—or, at the very least for the fact that Jesus was a very devout (orthodox) Jew—as these words of his clearly prove: “Think not that I have come to abolish the Law … for truly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away not an iota nor a dot shall pass from the Law …”(Matthew 5:17–19).

What’s the bottom line, then? It is that, ultra-conservative eisegetes aside, devout Jews and Christians who follow Jesus himself (and his teachings as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels) are far from being aliens to each other: they are (or should be! or shall become!) loving siblings, having one Father-in-Heaven (Avinu She-Shabayim), even Ha Kadosh Baruch, Baruch hu (the Holy One, Blessed, Blessed He is). Hey folks, for God’s sake (if no other), love one another before it’s too late!

Jewish and Gentile Covenants

Andrew Greeley’s disclaimer (“The Jewish God Is Also the Christian God”) of Jacob Neusner’s thesis (in “How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06) that Judaism and Christianity are “two utterly distinct and different” religions is too kind. Greeley prefers the description that they are “two different Judaisms,” which is as apt a description as there is presently available. Why he backs off saying that the problem in discussing the role of Jesus “is not … the Messianic question” is difficult to understand, since this is exactly the question that separates the two forms of Judaism, and is the question Neusner does his semantic sleight-of-hand tricks to avoid.

Not only was Jesus a Jew who worshipped in the Temple, but the entire Jerusalem church was Jewish, and continued to worship in the Temple as long as it stood. All the apostles were Jews including Shaul/Paul, who returned regularly to Jerusalem during the pilgrimage festivals to worship and sacrifice at the Temple. Paul was arrested at the Temple preparing to offer a sacrifice. The Jerusalem church met daily in the Temple for prayer (Acts 2:46).

Neusner uses Jesus’ cleaning of the Temple courts to defend a totally indefensible thesis. The purpose of Jesus’ action is clearly indicated in the text from Isaiah 56:7: “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The business operation of the Temple was set up in the Court of the Gentiles, effectively cancelling out its use as a place of prayer for non-Jews.

Paul warns the church at Rome (Romans 11) that they must never think of themselves as independent of Israel. He makes clear that to Israel belong the adoption of sons, the “glory,” the covenants, the Law, the worship of the Temple, the promises, the patriarchs and the human ancestry of the Messiah (Romans 9). The gentile believers are branches, they will never be the root. But, historically the Church did not listen to this Jewish apostle, the Pharisee who met the Messiah. The gentiles rejected their Jewish roots in theological arrogance. They turned this impossible attitude and guilt into active anti-Semitism.

Jamnia Judaism, for its part, rejected not only Jesus as Messiah, but allowed for no inclusion of the gentiles, believers or not, into the covenants of Israel. We are relegated to covenants available to righteous pagans, the covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:1–19). This fact directs the unwillingness of modern Jewish theologians to include in dialogue those obvious linkages between Israel and the church.

Present-day Jewish theologians are pleased that we acknowledge that Jesus was a Jew. They are also pleased about a new appreciation on the part of Christian thinkers of Christianity’s Jewish roots. But when it comes to accepting us as “a kind of Jew,” partakers with them of the covenants of Israel through the Messiah, they write inane articles like the one under discussion to drive an artificial wedge between Christianity and Judaism.

Modern-day Judaism wants a separate covenant for the gentiles. Of course this is impossible. Jesus was a Jew, and said, “Salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22). If that won’t work, they will argue that Christianity is a different religion, which is equally absurd.

I am willing to live with the fact that Jewish rabbis don’t want gentiles in their covenant with God. What I am not willing to live with is that God doesn’t want gentiles in his covenant with Israel. Here is where we differ. I am perfectly willing to talk about it. But, I am not willing to exclude it from the dialogue on some indefensible pretext.

Either/Or and Both/And

I enjoyed immensely the article “How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06, by Jacob Neusner. He makes a good argument that Judaism and Christianity should look at one another from a standpoint of mutual exclusivity; yet, is this possible? Even Neusner, in his marvelous comparison of Mary and Rachel, moves from declaring the exclusivity of each to the other to showing how much the two stories parallel one another in offering their truth. Neusner is showing that the two traditions are perhaps closer than he would admit. (“They really are totally alien to one another,” he writes.)

009

I don’t believe that Christians can ever accept that their faith is alien from Judaism. We have the lineage of Jesus, the fact that he was called rabbi and practiced his Judaism, and the sure word of prophecy concerning his coming as Messiah. Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled the messianic role predicted and foretold in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is as much a part of our canon as the New Testament.

For Judaism, it may indeed be an either/or proposition, but for Christians it is always both/and. May the dialogue continue!

Are Anti-Jewish Texts the Real Problem?

Professor Neusner is correct when he writes that many Jews and most Christians consider Judaism and Christianity fundamentally similar (“How Judaism and Christianity Can Talk to Each Other,” BR 06:06). Hence the often-heard phrase “the Judeo-Christian tradition.” When it comes to ethics the phrase is probably more or less applicable. But as concerns the two religions’ respective basic theological affirmations and praxis nothing could be further from reality. Judaism and Christianity are fundamentally different religions. Thus an acknowledgement of this fact by both Christians and Jews would undoubtedly be helpful toward a fruitful interreligious dialogue.

This is, however, only a minor part of the problem faced by the dialogue partners. By far the greatest obstacle to interreligious dialogue is the very nature of certain New testament texts, not to mention the extra-canonical apocryphal and patristic writings. It is there that it is repeatedly affirmed that Jesus Christ supersedes the Jewish Torah and that belief in Christ, rather than obedience to the mitzvot of Torah, is the sine qua non condition for human salvation and sanctification.

Interestingly enough, Neusner, a very erudite scholar, overlooks the polemical anti-Jewish nature of many New Testament texts. Norman Beck in his Mature Christianity (Susquehanna Univ. Press, 1985), categorizes these conveniently into Christological, supersessionist and defamatory polemics.

It is these polemics that constitute the greatest impediment to Jewish-Christian dialogue. How is it possible for Jews to dialogue with Christians constructively as long as these texts continue to be considered God-inspired and therefore authoritative? How can various Christian denominations’ affirmations condemning anti-Semitism be taken seriously as long as anti-Jewish texts continue to be read from pulpits and taught in Sunday schools?

After reading the passion texts in, say, the Gospel of John, one cannot help but get the clear impression that the Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death and that Pontius Pilate was innocent. Jews rightly ask why such texts continue to be read and taught uncritically in the churches when many top-notch Christian scholars such as Krister Stendhal, Rosemary Ruether, John Pawlikowski, Clemens Thoma and others (not to mention Jewish scholars) have identified them as historically incorrect.

Neusner who in his own field of competence (rabbinic literature) brings remarkable critical acumen to Jewish texts proves to be totally uncritical when it comes to New Testament texts. Why? Is it really unimportant to know whether certain words of Jesus are genuine or whether later redactors, motivated by tensions between Jews and Christians, placed them into Jesus’ mouth? If it could be proved that the historical Jewish Jesus of Nazareth had little or nothing to do with the inflammatory nature of these polemical texts, the churches could, while retaining them in the canon, write them off as nonauthoritative and thus take a huge step forward toward mutual understanding and respect.

It seems to me that the major obstacle to serious and successful Jewish-Christian dialogue lies in the fact that Christianity chose to define itself over and against Judaism. There is no way out of this dilemma—and even Neusner cannot do anything about it. The Christian self-definition in terms of “the Israel of God” that supersedes the Old Testament Jewish Israel has over the centuries wrought havoc with Jews and Judaism. This cannot be undone, alas. Judaism, on the other hand, stands on its own faith insights and has therefore no need to define itself over and against Christianity.

It is well known that Judaism’s holy canon also contains polemical texts. One need only turn to the end of Psalm 137 to encounter such an example. Too numerous to mention here are the 010passages condemning to death Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites and others. The difference between these and the anti-Jewish texts of the New Testament is obvious: none of these nations exist any longer. While certainly less than inspiring, they do not offend any of our contemporaries. Jews, on the other hand, continue to be around. Very often they are our neighbors. And the New Testament term “Jew,” often used pejoratively in the Christian Bible, remains the same term used for the identification of the family across the street.

It is well known that a number of texts in the Talmud slander Jesus. Competent Jewish scholars have long ago recognized that they are historically uninformed, therefore inaccurate and unimportant. Besides, these talmudic texts carry no authority for modern-day Jews nor are they read in worship.

That there exists an interesting relationship between the Virgin Mary and the Jewish matriarch Rachel is indisputable. Surely Professor Neusner is familiar with the typologies with which the New Testament abounds. Jesus himself is typologically related to Moses, as is John the Baptist to the prophet Elijah, etc. These relationships often established through simple proof-texting (a method used extensively by the rabbis and at Qumran as well), do not represent an obstacle to Jewish-Christian dialogue.

What does obstruct fruitful conversations between Jews and Christians are the polemical anti-Jewish texts, particularly in the Passion narratives, texts concerning which the churches have so far not bothered to take any action. Here lies the crux of the matter.

It seems to me that Professor Neusner in writing this article overstepped his competence. While it contains interesting material, it does not address itself to the heart of the matter under discussion. It is also regrettable that Neusner could not refrain from insulting Professor Geza Vermes, an outstanding Jewish scholar and specialist in New Testament studies. In doing so, Neusner also slams the late Joseph Klausner, brilliant author of the seminal Jesus of Nazareth (Menorah, 1978), whose views happen to coincide with those of Vermes.

(The author is a retired professor of biblical studies. He recently published The Teaching of Disdain: An Examination of Christology and New Testament Attitudes Toward Jews [1990].)

Every One a Gem