Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Literature

and the New Testament

Higher Critical Review

Jacob Neusner
Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament. What We Cannot
Show We Do Not Know. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press, 1994. xii+195
pp. $17.00

Reviewed by J. Duncan M. Derrett

JHC 4/2 (Fall, 1997), 151-154.

During a period when it was doubted what reliance could be placed in

references to, especially parallels in, rabbinical sources for the
elucidation of the New Testament (note 1), and after this reviewer had
explained the prevailing reluctance to consult such amorphous material
(New Resolutions of Old Conundrums [1986], 201-214), here Neusner
sets out objections to the common use of rabbinical sources both by
celebrated Christian scholars and by some Jewish commentators on
Jesus. Whatever Jesus may have failed to do, he had succeded,
especially since the discovery of Qumran, in attracting a galaxy of
Jewish writers to the task of explaining him, and even writing
imaginative (but as Neusner hints jejune) Lives of him.

Neusner's argument here is twofold. First faith-history is not history,

and therefore pseudo-orthodoxy must be recognized for what it is.
Secondly, since rabbinical material, e.g., the Mekilta, Midrash Rabbah,
the Talmuds, and so forth, are compilations by compilers each with
:
 his/their own agenda(s), and since individual passages, especially
biographical and haggadic, are often pseudonymous inventions�and
some are forgeries�no reliance ought to be placed on them except to
show that such a view was expressed by the compilers always
centuries after Christ, and therefore probably irrelevant to Jesus'
situation. Neusner reserves some faith in the Mishnah, which, too, must
explain itself. For it is whatever it is, and is not whatever it is not (p.
123)�but it must be handled circumspectly.

He likens theologians' homogenizing use of the Talmuds (p. 106) to a

description of primitive Christianity using materials hardly earlier than
St. Augustine and Byzantium. He marvels how New Testament scholars
show such minute discrimination, even skepticism, about gospel
pericopae, but treat rabbinical passages gullibly. Such uncritical
behaviour is known in those rabbinical circles that ask, "Can our
ancient sages lie?," presume in favour of the reliability of any text, and
treat rabbinical pronouncements (as the rabbis treat the TNK) as
mutually coeval, ignoring questions of chronology. Admittedly this is a
specialist environment. The New Testament men seem to believe,
"What you do not know, you do not have to show; just say it and it
becomes so" (p. 101).

He castigates (1) their failing carefully and critically to analyse the

literary and historical traits of every pericope adduced as evidence; (2)
their assumption that things happened exactly as the sources allege;
and (3) their use of anachronistic or inappropriate analogies and the
introduction of irrelevant issues (p. 94).

We may neglect his autobiographical and crypto-autobiographical

asides; and we can ignore his buttering his victims thoroughly before
grilling them (whereas we toast before we butter). As he rightly says,
:
 what counts is the argument, which is totally persuasive. This reviewer
will hereafter hesitate to write "the rabbis" when what is meant is
"some rabbis"; and to attribute a saying or deed to a particular rabbi,
when the compiler may well have taken his name in vain (a "fable"),
even with political motives such as Neusner has uncovered (p. 81).

Does it follow that we should never consult the Talmuds (as Jeremias
and the translator Schonfield did), or even refer to Maimonides, that
trusty retailer of Talmudic principles? Is it mere gullibility, naivety, to do
this, and therefore a fraud to pop rabbinical references in footnotes as
Samuel Lachs constantly does (A Rabbinic Commentary on the New
Testament. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, 1987), and of
whom Neusner disapproves? And is the disclosure of parallels
between, say, Gospel parables and rabbinical parables simply pointless,
as Neusner hints a propos of poor Brad Young (Jesus and His Jewish
Parables. Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus' Teaching, 1989), who
laboured long in Jerusalem and is here dismissed for his pains as
credulous (he had failed to see something in an obscure periodical)? In
fact, there is a danger of misunderstanding the case Neusner makes so
tellingly.

When, for example, on Mt 12:42 / Lk 11:31 Lache notes "m. Sanh 10:3;
b. B. B. 15b," he is using shorthand. He means (as did the sadly
underrated Billerbeck) that if we consult those passages we should find
something to our advantage. He does not certify that the passages are
true, or that they are to be traced to the first century. He does not
suggest that Jesus relied on a tradition which is reflected in those
passages. But when we see the point in each case we realize that
knowledge kept alive in some form both in the Gospel and in rabbinical
passages makes it easier to understand what Jesus or his
:
 ventriloquists are talking about. This may well be use of an "extra-text,"
as some scholars complain who wish to research no more than one
book. But if it works it is useful. The same can be said of the Targums,
especially the Jonathan Targum, which continually provides illumination
(note 2). If scripture was expounded in ancient times in that non-literal
way (one used one passage to throw light on others), that proves that
such an exegesis was possible. And, if possible then putatively
available with a good hope of being listened to. Many exegeses were
expected, as reflected in Midrash Rabbah, but Jesus' "school"
preferred in time certain perhaps eccentric expositions of a text all
parties were treating as holy (Marc G. Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius:
Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity, 1995).
And they had little confidence to abandon the text.

Many NT passages are barely intelligible without careful recourse to the

Law, the Prophets and the Writings, and more will come to life if one
calls upon rabbis. Mt 13:44 is clearer if one known that moveables are
conveyed along with land and yet require to be lifted or drawn; Lk
10:35, if one realizes that contracts are not binding without present
transfer of possession of a valuable; Lk 16:5-7, that usury was
practised and many fictions were adopted to evade the biblical
prohibition; Lk 12:18, that when A does a kindness for B he makes the
latter his debtor (note 3); Phlm 10, that Abraham "made" converts; Mt
26:63, that the so-called Testimony Oath (fictionally based on Lev 5:1)
forced observant Jews to disclose secret matters; Mk 7:11, that if one
vowed property to the Treasury one could not be compelled to retract;
Lk 17:34, that haggada found the first born dead wherever they were
lying (note 4); Mt 26:1l / Mk 14:7 / Jn 2:8, that rabbinics resolves the
conflict between Dt 15:4 and 15:11, also the priority between gem�l�t
hasad�m and alms; and Mt 25:32-33, if one realizes that "goats" are
:
 devils. Further, Lk 2:13-14, where angels disturb shepherds' quiet, is
illuminated by the former's jealousy of Adam, Abraham, and Moses, as
recorded in abundant haggada; while haggada about Adam, and
halakha defining zeun�t,, explain 1 Cor 6:15-18. One could go on until
one's paper ran out. Neusner (p. 76) admits that an old tradition may be
verified from a medieval compilation�and why not?

In short, whereas Neusner's warnings and ridicule of the uncautious

should rightly deter us from blithely using rabbis to enrich our picture
of Jesus, Jewish culture, with its conservative bias (as in Islam, where
the chains of tradition may be fictional), is a fine illuminator of dark
places in the New Testament, and the value of parallels depends on
their plausibility, rationality, and, in short, success. First we scrutinize
scripture, and then traditions which, though they may be far from
complete, and far from representative, may, over centuries, retain
traditions filling some of our woeful gaps in background knowledge.
Neusner does not deny this in his present work; hence David Daube, for
one, escapes his wrath.

Return to Higher Critical Review

Return to JHC Home Page

NOTES

1 Johann Maler, Jesus von Nazareth In der Talmudischen Uberlieferung

(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftllche Buchgesellachaft, 1978), 212-222; Lou
H. Silberman, "Once again� the use of rabbinical material," NTS 42/1
(1996), 153-155; Raymond E. Brown, "The Babylonian Talmud on the
Death of Jesus," NTS 43/1 (1997), 158-159.

2 Bruce Chilton, "Targumic transmission and dominical tradition," in R.

:
 T. France and David Wenham (eds.), Gospel Perspectives I (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1983), 21-45.

3With regard to this and the following, see J. D. M. Derrett, Some

Telltale Words In the New Testament (1997), nn. 1, 13, 19, 32.

4J. D. M. Derrett, "'On That Night': Luke 17:34," E.Q.. 68/1 (1996), 35-
46. Mekilta of R. Simeon b. Yochai on Ex 12:27.

Copyright © Institute for Higher Critical Studies, 1998

Darrell J. Doughty
Institute for Higher Critical Studies
Drew University, Madison, NJ, 07940
ddoughty@drew.edu
: