Jewish Exegesis of the OT Scriptures in the days of Jesus

by fulltimestudent 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  fulltimestudent

  The sub-structure of the NT, as understood by New Testament Scholar, Charles Harold Dodd, is based on,

  “ … passages of OT scripture with their application to the gospel facts … it provided the starting point of the theological constructions of Paul, (and)  the author of ‘To the Hebrews, and the Fourth Evangelist. It is the substructure of all Christian theology and contains already its chief regulative ideas.” ( C.H.Dodd, According to the Scriptures Nisbet, 1952, p.127).

  This is not the perspective adopted by many contemporary Christians who, in practise, often seem ready to discard the OT.

  But if this is a correct view, then it becomes important to understand the way that Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and his followers saw and used the OT scriptures.. James Dunn asserts (J.D.G.Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, SCM Press, 2006, p.89  ) that the Jewish exegesis of the scriptures by the contemporaries of Jesus is the proper background to early Christianity.

  To understand how the contemporaries of Jesus discussed the OT scriptures, we need to think of the categories that were current at that time. Dunn suggests there were five. These are, targum, midrash, pesher, typological and allegorical, but points out that the last three are often controversial.

  I propose to discuss these five categories, starting tomorrow with the Targums,
• 

  Cold Steel

  This is not the perspective adopted by many contemporary Christians who, in practise, often seem ready to discard the OT.

  Quite right. Mostly because of a misunderstanding of what the Jews thought and how they thought. 

  Keep in mind that when Gabriel appeared to Zachariah in the temple, the Jews had not had a heavenly manifestation, or rather, revelation, for some 400 years. Also, one of the reasons for the targumim was the fact that the Jews were undergoing an incredible transformation in both language and culture. The Romans were winning many of their hearts and minds; building roads, aqueducts, new sea roots to India and the Far East -- a move that all but killed the caravan frankincense trade. And just a few decades later, in fulfillment of prophecy, things suddenly became far worse as Jerusalem was sacked. 

  The Essenes hid up their Jewish records in the Dead Sea and only was discovered just a few years before the source you cite. Then, no one knew much about the Jews or early Christians. About the same time the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the Coptic Christian library was found in Nag Hammadi and now it was time for the Christian scholars to panic. Now that we know so much more about Jewish views and expectations, and about Christian views, we realize we are still lost in the paperwork. The WTBTS teaches many things we now know are just plain wrong. Teachings like man having a spirit was an old Hebrew doctrine, not a Greek intervention. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your views. 
• 

  kaik

  I studied with rabbi and got very good insight from him regarding OT and why Jesus is never acceptable to Judaism as a Messiah. Educated Jews find NT laughable as it is far from the teaching of the Judaism and its core beliefs and values.

  Couple days ago I have discussed on different thread regarding literacy of Jews in the time of Jesus. 90% of them in his time were illiterate and they had to depend on oral tradition and memory to recite their beliefs and teaching. Only handful of priests were educated and had access to various reading material. It was time before print press and copies of the manuscripts were expensive to do so. Literacy among Jews before the Renaissance was still bit higher than for majority of Europeans, but still two thirds were illiterate. So I do not think the masses during Jesus time were well educated in the OT or had access to them.

  Split between Judaism and Christianity was started by apostle Paul to make old Jewish beliefs obsolete and new religion based on Jesus death desirable. In the 1st century, this split did not exist and was completed by 100 AD, about three generations after death of Jesus.
  
• 

  jhine

  All the Christians that I know and all the Christian Books that I have read fully recognise the importance of the OT. Again ideas about the mainstream churches that I do not recognise from 40 years as a Christian.. 

        Jan 
• 

  Phizzy

  Keep up the good work FTS !

  I am sure that your posts, starting tomorrow, will enlighten us as to the thinking of 1st Century Jewish theologians, and will give us an insight on the thought processes of the Gospel writers, who invented the "teaching of Jesus".

  As Cold Steel says above, an appreciation of what they thought, and perhaps more importantly, HOW they thought, can help us read the N.T for what it truly is, a product of its time.
• 

  sir82

  Couple days ago I have discussed on different thread regarding literacy of Jews in the time of Jesus. 90% of them in his time were illiterate and they had to depend on oral tradition and memory to recite their beliefs and teaching. Only handful of priests were educated and had access to various reading material. It was time before print press and copies of the manuscripts were expensive to do so.

  Of course this is absolutely true.

  Which makes even more laughable a picture in one of the latest Watchtowers.

  It shows Jesus leaning on a table, just kind of chilling in a synagogue, casually reading a scroll, while miscellaneous priests go walking around behind him.

  Apparently the WT artist conceived of 1st century synagogues as a kind of public library where a scruffy  Jewish carpenter could just walk in and pick a scroll out of a basket & just, you know, browse through it.

  Idiots.
  
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Targums (or, Targumim, if you prefer).

  A Targum can be defined at the simplest level as a ’Translation’. These ‘translations’ occurred after the Babylonian exile of the Jewish elite and their return to the desolated Jerusalem, as Hebrew was displaced by Aramaic. Hebrew continued to be the language of scholars and used in written works, but at some point Aramaic became the main language of the people, which meant that readings from the ‘Law and the Prophets’ required translation, oral at first, but eventually with written copies being made.

  Why are they valuable in Biblical studies? Simply because the Targums were not merely a (literal) translation, but were often a paraphrase or, (if you like) a combined translation and explanation. The original text may be expanded (words added) or even altered so that it could be interpreted differently to the original. Which may give us some ideas about the way that the original text and its 'sacredness' were viewed.

  
  

  So here we see a ‘living’ understanding, as beliefs underwent re-interpretation. That’s why the targums are valuable in scholarship, through the comments and changes by their authors we sense the development of religious thinking.

  For example in the LXX (Greek Septuagint), we may also find alterations to the Hebrew text. And, more famously, there is the Targum of Isaiah 53. Dunn calls it a tendentious translation, deliberately translated to rule out a Christian interpretation.

   

  Mention of the LXX brings up another contentious aspect of first century life. What language were the Jewish people of Palestine using?* Dunn (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, SCM Press, 2006, p.89) argues that,

  “ … By the first century AD Aramaic was probably the only language which many (most?) Palestinean Jews actually spoke.”

  Such a view ignores the impact of Hellenic culture on Palestine. After the return from Babylon, Palestine continued to be a Persian province, until Alexander the Great (356-323) conquered the Jews again. (Again, that is, after the Assyrians, the Babylonians and the Persians).** After the death of Alexander Greek or Hellenistic influence became even stronger, from either the Ptolemaic Dynasty which ruled Egypt or the Seleucid Dynasty which ruled Syria. Even the brief period of independence after the Maccabean revolt did not prevent the continued intrusion of Greek language and thought into the lives of the Palestinian Jews. All aspects of their lives were affected – their way of life, business, education and ethos were mediated through Greek culture.

  So could Jesus speak Greek? We cannot be sure, but the probable answer is that most Jews may have been bi-lingual. Certainly, the use if the LXX in the NT documents is a good indication of the profound penetration of Greek culture among Palestinian Jews. ***

   

  * A good overview of this issue may be found in this paper:

  Which Semitic Language Did Jesus and Other Contemporary Jews Speak?

  Link: http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1202633.files/Lesson%2011/11b%20Fassberg.pdf

   

  ** In such a list we glimpse the main religious issue facing Jewish thinkers. They claimed to be the ‘people of the true God,’ and yet they were continually conquered by people who had other Gods. How could this state of affairs, be explained. The answer they came up with could be called “national sins” with a continual need to be saved from their sins by a future leader who would restore their national dignity, and prove beyond doubt that their God was All-powerful.

   

  *** Achtemeier et al, Introducing the New Testament, Its Literature and Theology, Eerdmans, 2001. P.21.

   
• 

  fulltimestudent

  I decided to raise the issue of the 'Hellenisation' of Judaism as a footnote in my above post. As witnesses we were inculcated with the idea that the All-Powerful Yahweh used the Jews to maintain a thread of pure worship on the earth, therefore Jewish thought (and, hence the Bible) could not have been sullied by "pagan' ideas.

  So the depth of the Hellenistic influence on the world in which Jesus grew up, is a key issue in assessing the reliability of J.witness scholarship. The more I read, the more convinced I become, that there was a profound change in Jewish (and, hence early Christian) thinking as a result of the influence of Greek ideas.

  Here's a long review of Martin Hengel's study on this subject, called:

  , The 'Hellenization' of Judaea in the First Century after Christ

  Amazon reference: http://www.amazon.com/Hellenization-Judea-First-Century-Christ/dp/1592441874

  I'd like to post all of a review from that site, as it explains better than I can, how powerful the pervasive spread of Hellenism may have been upon the Jews of the time. I won't hold my breath waiting for a Watchtower article admitting that Jesus was influenced by Greek thinking, but the evidence points in that direction. Here's the reviewer's comments.

  Martin Hengel was a German theologian and historian, specializing in the history of early Christianity. Hengel was critical of the sharp demarcation between "Jewish" and "Hellenistic" often made by historical-critical scholars who study the emergence of Christianity. The usual critical scenario is that Jesus and his earliest followers were very "Jewish". Jesus was essentially a Jewish prophet or wisdom teacher. Later, his message was "Hellenized" by Paul. Real Christianity therefore began with Paul, or perhaps even somewhat later. Hengel, by contrast, believed that all of Palestine was sufficiently "Hellenized" already before the time of Jesus. Therefore, Jesus and the original disciples might very well have been "Hellenized" as well. If so, religious ideas considered more Hellenistic than Jewish might have developed in Palestinian Jewish circles. Perhaps Paul's message wasn't a complete break with the original ideas of the Jesus Movement? Of course, Hengel's idea of a continuity between Jesus, The Twelve and Paul is ultimately an attempt to prove the veracity of the New Testament. In other words, the position is based on a theological agenda. Still, Hengel makes an interesting and even somewhat compelling case, making him well worth reading.
  It should be noted that Hengel rejects the term "Hellenization", since in his opinion Jewish and foreign cultures had become so intertwined by the time of Jesus, that there really was no difference between the "Jewish" and the "Greek" in the Jewish culture of Palestine, at least not in the cities, within the educated elite or among the middle classes. The distinction between "Jewish" and "Hellenistic" often made when discussing early Christianity is, in Hengel's opinion, methodologically flawed. "Hellenism" had become an integrated part of Judaism. Of course, another way of saying the same thing, would be to claim that Judaism was so Hellenized that Jesus himself may have been a Hellenized Jew. Indeed, this seems to be Hengel's real point.
  As already noted, Hengel believes that Palestinian Judaism was just as Hellenized (or "Hellenized") as Diaspora Judaism. This process, ironically, started with the Maccabees, who despite their militantly Jewish and anti-Greek stance, nevertheless adapted themselves to Greek cultural forms and expressions. The Hasmoneans weren't much different from other Hellenistic monarchs, and they cultivated the legend that Jews and Spartans were actually related peoples (a legend mentioned in 1 Maccabees). The Graeco-Roman and cosmopolitan spirit of Herod the Great is obvious, but was of course combined with promotion of the Jewish religion. That certain elite groups in Palestine were Hellenized is hardly big news, but Hengel believes that this was true of a larger segment of the population as well. Between 10% and 20% of Jerusalem's native population may have been Greek-speaking Jews. The coastal towns were primarily Greek-speaking. In Caesarea, half of the population were Hellenized Jews. In Ashdod and Jamnia, more than half. Archaeological evidence includes synagogue and ossuary inscriptions in Greek.
  Even more to the point, Hengel states that Galilee was virtually hemmed in by Gentile towns: Ptolemais, Tyre, Sidon, Caesarea Philippi, Scythopolis and the notorious Gadara. Both Cynics, Pythagoreans and worshippers of Dionysius may have existed in these towns. Galilee itself was Jewish but couldn't escape the influence of Hellenism. Tiberias and the famed Sepphoris probably had a Hellenized Jewish population. The most sensational piece of information is perhaps the claim that the fishing industry at Lake Tiberias may have been owned and operated by Greeks. (Clue: Peter was a fisherman.) An often overlooked fact is that two of Jesus' disciples had purely Greek names: Andrew and Philip. Hengel also believes that Thaddeus and Bartholomew are Aramaized Greek names, as is the name Bartimaeus, the blind beggar cured by Jesus. The names Simon and Shimeon are almost interchangeable. The Gospel of John claims that Andrew, Philip and Simon Peter came from Bethsaida, a village refounded by Herod's son Philip in honour of Augustus' daughter Julia, and therefore a more "Hellenized" and important village than the surrounding ones. From this, Hengel draws the conclusion that Peter may indeed have been bilingual. Another inevitable conclusion is that Jesus got some of his earliest followers from Hellenized Jewish milieus.
  Another topic discussed by the author is the class composition of the earliest Palestinian Christians. Hengel regards them as middle class, with some support from wealthy patrons. At one point, he half-jokingly calls the class base of early Christianity "petty bourgeois". He seems to believe that the common people outside the towns were the least Hellenized, and that the Jewish radicals drew their support primarily from this group. The aristocracy and the middle classes, by contrast, were less radical. This presumably explains why the Christians didn't support the Jewish war against Rome, but preferred to abscond. According to a much later tradition, the Christians fled from Jerusalem to Pella, a town inhabited by Gentiles and Hellenized Jews! In this context, Hengel speculates that Jesus himself was middle class. He wasn't a lowly carpenter, but rather a skilled builder.
  Another interesting chapter, but also a weaker one, deals with concrete Greek influences on various Jewish writings, including the "Old Testament". The author admits himself that this is a tricky subject, since Greek culture may have been influenced by Persian and Semitic culture at an earlier date. A "Greek" idea found in a Jewish scripture may just as well be indigenous to the Middle East. For some reason, Hengel doesn't discuss the Egyptian dimension. Nor does he want to permit out and out pagan influences on Judaism, i.e. pagan in the religious sense. Perhaps this is too close to home for a theologian? The idea that Christianity was connected to the mystery religions isn't safely buried just yet. Curiously, Hengel nevertheless admits that the story of the wedding at Cana contains Dionysian elements (Jesus turning water into wine), and that Dionysus was indeed worshipped in Scythopolis, only eighteen miles away. Scythopolis was the purported burial place of the god's nurse! As a side point, Hengel points out the remarkable fact that the anti-Greek Essenes nevertheless was the Jewish group most readily interpreted in Greek terms, as a Pythagorean order...
  As already noted, the message of "The hellenization of Judea in the first century after Christ" is that typically Christian ideas which are usually pinned on Paul or later writers might as well have started with Jesus and The Twelve. At the same time, the author does allow for a "Judaizing" tendency within the early Church, centred around James, but believes that this was a conservative reaction to the innovations of Jesus and the original disciples, due in part to the harsher and more nationalistic climate of later years.
  I don't believe that Martin Hengel has "proven" his position, any more than, say, Bart Ehrman have "proven" his. It's exceedingly difficult to prove or disprove claims about the historical Jesus and his earliest movement. However, this little book (only 100 pages) at least shows that a relatively coherent case can be made for Jesus, The Hellenized Jew.
• 

  kaik

  It is also important to mention FTS, that Jesus supposedly lived in Egypt in his childhood, where he may had obtain some education. Egypt in the Roman times was home to largest Jewish diaspora numbering about 1 million. Majority of Jews in the 1st century lived outside Judea (about 2/3), and their primary language in Egypt was Greek. Helenization of Jews is certainly factor especially considering Alexandria to be the center of the Jewish intellectual elite until Trajan, far more than Jerusalem. It is impossible to divide Judaism from province of Judea and Egypt under one common Roman administration at the time of Jesus. However, in the Judea, the Aramaic language was the language of the masses who were mostly illiterate peasants. Only educate elite could communicate in more than one language, dealing with Roman administration and with their holy books.
  
• 

  fulltimestudent

  kaik4 days ago

  It is also important to mention FTS, that Jesus supposedly lived in Egypt in his childhood, where he may had obtain some education.

  
  

  Thnks for raising the Jesus/Egypt connection, kaik.

  
  

  If, as we once did, accept the OT/NT as absolute truth then we would have no problem with the Jesus/Egypt story. The problem however, is that only Matthew tells that story, and he then proceeds to use the Egypt story as 'proof' that Jesus was the messiah, (Matthew 2:15, where the author of Matthew then quotes Hosea 11:1:

  When Israel was a child, I loved him,     and out of Egypt I called my son.(NIV)

  
  

  The problem with that quote is, of course, that the author of Hosea is plainly talking about 'Israel' being called out of Egypt, and does not attempt to make any application to a future messiah.
  
  

  It must be acknowledged  by all, that there are clear and obvious connections between Egypt and Israel/Judea. Before Moses the Egyptians ruled the land that became Israel. The Bible does not mention that. I wonder why? Do you think it would spoil the story a bit?

  
  

  Egypt in the Roman times was home to largest Jewish diaspora numbering about 1 million. Majority of Jews in the 1st century lived outside Judea (about 2/3), and their primary language in Egypt was Greek. Helenization of Jews is certainly factor especially considering Alexandria to be the center of the Jewish intellectual elite until Trajan, far more than Jerusalem.

  And, much the same can be said of Babylonian Jews. A significant number of Jews descended from the Jewish elite taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar decided not to go back to a ruined Jerusalem. Their descendants still lived in Babylon and other cities when Jerusalem was destroyed again by the Romans and became a significant Jewish intellectual centre also.