Using Jewish Sources in New Testament Interpretation

Introduction

Scholars often support an interpretation of a NT text or idea by referring to Jewish writings; the argument is a contextual one—they say that ‘here in this text’ we find the same or a similar idea to that which is in the NT, therefore ‘this’ (‘my’) interpretation of the NT is correct. The purpose of this essay is to put these Jewish writings into a framework that allows us to assess the value of them as evidence of first century thought.

Selecting Second Temple Material

Obviously material extant in Jesus’ day is relevant in describing the Judaism(s)[1] of the time, but scholars also select material from the immediately following centuries and it is the use of these texts that has to be tentative. Why is this?

Second Temple Writings

Scholars dispute the dating of writings that are extant in the first century CE, and they debate the date of writings belonging to the second century CE. Whichever writings are chosen, the principle assumption is that they are thought to include traditions of interpretation that reflect the first century.

The literature is substantial and one principle of organization is thematic; the writings may encode influential ideas, but they may also be idiosyncratic. The literature can be treated in three groups: i) material concerned with the past, principally Scriptural interpretations; ii) material concerned with contemporary events, principally sapiential or philosophical writing; and iii) material concerned with the future, principally writings that invoke restoration themes.

Representative writings for would be: 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, Testament of Job, Jubilees, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Abraham, Testament of Moses, 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, Sibylline Oracles, Assumption of Moses, as well as Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon.[2] Any of these writings would supply Jewish-Palestinian ideas extant in the first century. Josephus’ writings are referenced for history, since he is by far the major (and often only) source for Palestinian history. Philo’s writings are referenced for philosophical interpretation, but his Alexandrian locale limits his value for Palestinian views.[3] The Dead Sea Scrolls date from the before and after the beginning of the common era, and their value lies in their contribution to the understanding of the biblical text, biblical interpretation of the ‘last days’, and the workings of a Jewish sect.[4]

Rabbinical Writings

D. Chilton describes the standard approach to rabbinical materials:

Mishnah, Midrash and Talmud present us, in the main, with intramural rabbinic discussion. Targums provide us with some insight into how those discussions found expression in a more public, less expert context, i.e., in the worship of the faithful.[5]

Accordingly, we should divide our treatment into two parts. Scholars use early Tannaitic material to illuminate Jewish views in the first century (i.e. the Rabbis from the 2^nd and early 3^rd centuries CE). The main documents to include predominantly early Tannaitic material are the Mishnah, Tosefta, Mekilta, Seder Olam Rabbah, Sifre, Sifra and Abot de Rabbi Nathan.

Regarding the Mishnah, the received view is that it came into existence as a written document towards the end of the 2c. and that it mainly cites Tannaim subsequent to Bar Kokhba;[6] similarly, Sifra is typically dated to the late 2c./early 3c.[7]; Of the Mekilta, J. Z. Lauterbach comments that it “shows itself to be one of the older Tannaitic works”.[8] H. W. Basser concludes that Sifre is Palestinian in origin, written around the same time as the Mishnah, utilising earlier Tannaitic traditions grounded on the work of R. Akiba.[9] Y. Elman summarises scholarly views about the dating of Tosefta and offers the tentative opinion that “conceptually, it seems pre-Amoraic” (i.e. not from rabbis of the late 3^rd century CE and later), and that its language points to an early date.[10] C. J. Milikowsky accepts the traditional ascription of Seder Olam Rabbah to R. Jose ben Halaphta.[11] A. J. Saldarini argues for a pre-Mishnaic ’Abot R. Nat., commenting on a pre-Mishnaic Pir‡ê Abot that this developed in two directions represented by the two manuscript traditions (A) and (B), of which (B) is the earlier—3c.[12]

Our interest with these documents should be in both what they ascribe to the Tannaim and in their anonymous statements. A reasonable working hypothesis is the tradition (b. San 86a, b. Yev 82b) that R. Nehemiah (mid-2c.) is the author of anonymous statements of the Tosefta, R. Meir (early 2c.) anonymous statements in the Mishnah, R. Judah (mid-2c.) anonymous statements in Sifra, R. Simeon ben Yohai (early 2c.), anonymous statements in the Sifre, and that these works were based on the teachings of R. Akiba (early 2c.). The earlier the Rabbi, the safer it is to use their comments for our reconstruction of first century Judaism (particularly Pharisaic).

The classification and dating scheme for the Jewish Midrashim by M. D. Herr is still used today.[13] Citations in the Midrashim attributed to Tannaim by Amoraic and Post-Amoraic Rabbis can also be used for first century opinion, but they carry less weight. But the citations belonging to the Amoraim and later Rabbis, or those which are insufficiently identified, with the citation lacking a patronym, these should not be used, for example, Pesikta Rabbati, Midrash TanHuma, Pěsi‡ta dě-Rab Kahána, and Pir‡ê de Rabbi Eliezer:[14] With regard to later anthologies of Midrashim, such as Aggadat Bereshit (10c.) and Midrash ha-Gadol (14c.), which have been used by NT scholars, following G. Stemberger’s dating[15]  we should exclude them form our picture of the first century.

Targums

Targumic traditions developed in the day-to-day synagogue application of Scripture (where Hebrew had ceased to be the vernacular), and they are a witness for identifying common theological conceptions. However, the Targums as we have them are professional translations,[16] which involved rabbinical schools after the first century. Accordingly, their value as evidence of first century thought is qualified. However, as G. Vermes notes, the Targums have an advantage as to evidence compared with other rabbinical literature because the Aramaic texts were “probably subjected to a less thorough updating than the Mishnah, Tosefta, Talmud and halakhic Midrashim”.[17] The Palestinian Pentateuchal Targums, Neofiti, Fragment Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan, along with the Pentateuchal Targum Onqelos and Targum Jonathan to the Prophets are of some value for bible interpretation in the first century.[18]

It has been held that the Palestinian Targums “preserved many exegetical traditions which would have circulated in the Jewish community of the first century”.[19] However, an early date for the Palestinian Targums as a whole cannot be an unqualified assumption in any comparative investigation.[20] Following M. J. McNamara,[21] we can say that the language of Neofiti and Fragment Targum suggests a third century CE date, includes earlier tradition, and does not preclude there having been a “proto-Palestinian” Targum in the first century from which Onqelos and Neofiti derive. Following S. A. Kaufman, we can assume that Pseudo-Jonathan is a late post-Talmudic composite Targum based on Onqelos and Palestinian Targum traditions.[22] McNamara’s (2004) latest summary of scholarship is that, “it is now generally recognized that Pseudo-Jonathan should not properly be classified as representing the Palestinian Targum…it is the work of a scholar and was not intended for synagogue use”.[23] This is the best position on this Targum, and it is important because NT scholars have made critical use of Pseudo-Jonathan in their use of the Targums as evidence of first century thought.

Scholars locate Onqelos in either Babylon or Palestine.[24] B. Grossfeld adopts the latter view speculating that there was a Proto-Onqelos “containing older Palestinian traditions which were preserved throughout the final redaction process in Babylonia”.[25] McNamara notes that several scholars date the language of Onqelos to the early 2c.[26] On this basis, we can assign Onqelos greater weight as evidence of first century views. Our assumption would be that the Palestinian Targums, including Onqelos, represent alternative though not necessarily competing traditions.

The date and place of origin for Targum Jonathan to the Prophets has been assigned to Palestine and late first century or early second century. Because of the linguistic affinity between Onqelos and Targum Jonathan, the two Targums are often given the same provenance.[27] L. Smolar and M. Aberbach, after reviewing scholarship on the question of dating, conclude that Targum Jonathan “is a late first century-early second century work which originated and was first developed in the land of Israel before being brought to Babylonia where it was redacted prior to the Arab invasion”.[28] This would be our assumption, and as such, it admits Targum Jonathan as evidence of first century Judaism.[29]

Conclusion

NT scholars often reference Jewish writings in their exegesis and in making historical claims. They may or may not be specialists in Jewish literature, either of the Second Temple, or of the rabbinical period. Equally, their views may be out of date since, for example, targumic scholarship has moved on since the 1980s in its consensus opinions. Jewish interpretations are of comparative historical interest and they serve to act as a brake on the Christian theologizing that goes on with the NT.