[1]Most recently, some have commented on the clear separation that exists between North American scholarship and Israeli/Jewish scholarship. With the translation of several works from Hebrew the circle of acceptance has undoubtedly grown but remains exclusive. Jewish and Christian scholars trained under Israelis in the fields of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity have yet to be offered a full-membership the North American, especially, evangelical club. One would think that the search for Jesus the Jew would stimulate discussion regarding the progress that Israeli/Jewish scholars have made in this regard.
There are several reasons that allow for the persistence of this bias. Among them are a linguistic bias against Hebrew as a living language in first century Judea, the “Third Quest’s” search for Jesus’ Jewishness solely as a category among money and not as the foundational starting point, a general lack of knowledge of Second Temple Judaism (although there is hope on the horizon), and, last but certainly not least, Markan-priority—both the double source hypothesis or the belief that Mark is the most primitive of our canonical gospels, now an a priori solution to the Synoptic Problem (Also, I believe there to be more personal, theological reasons for the separation, but those will not be discussed in this blog. There also seems to be a lack of knowledge of Modern Hebrew among NT scholars, therefore accessing works on the scrolls and Second Temple Judaism that continue to be produced and do not have an English translation is unlikely).
Regardless of the studies conducted on the linguistic landscape of first century Judea, Aramaic perserveres as the defining semitic tongue of Jesus and his followers. Articles, such as Shmuel Safrai’s “Literary Languages in the Time of Jesus” and Hanan Eshel’s “Use of the Hebrew Langauge in Economic Documents from the Judeaen Desert” in Jesus’ Last Week (eds. S. Notley, M. Turnage, and B. Becker; Leiden; Brill, 2006; See also, Yehoshua M. Grintz, “Hebrew as a Written and Spoken Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple” JBL 79/1 [1960], 32-47) have yet to be engaged seriously by NT scholars. The overwhelming number of Dead Sea Scrolls that were composed in Hebrew (and not copies of biblical texts; e.g. CD, 4QMMT, 1QHa) have done little to chip away at the mighty Aramaic fortress constructed, most notably, by scholars such as, Josephy Fitzmyer (A Wandering Aramean, 1979) and Matthew Black (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 1967). This scholarly blind-spot continues to haunt New Testament studies. Moreover, parables, which are preserved in the New Testament in Greek are always found within Rabbinic material in Hebrew, even when surrounded by Aramaic commentary. This is not to say that Aramaic was not a living and utilized language in the first century, but, it does intimate that Hebrew did not take a back seat. Until Hebrew is recognized as part of Judea’s tri-lingual landscape (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic) in antiquity, proper historical criticism and an appropiate addressing of the Synoptic Problem will be forever elusive. While New Testament programs in North America stress Koine, even Classical, Greek as a priority, a high level of control in all three languages should be a requirement for any serious handling of first century material (Students may also want to include modern Hebrew in their language forte).
Both a lack of knowledge, or recognition of good source material, regarding Second Temple Judaism and the so-called Third Quest’s search for Jesus the Jew seem to have a distinct connection. Marc Goodacre commented on his blog that he was puzzled by April DeConick’s (Professor of Biblical Studies at Rice University; ck. her blog) characterizations of the “Third Quest” where Jesus “rarely appears as a Jew”. Goodacre mentions E. P. Sanders’ work Jesus and Judaism and Vermes’ Jesus the Jew, as well as N. T. Wright, and their contributions to this area of research. The problem simply stated, however, is that Jesus as a Jew, in most of these works, becomes one of many categories that he is fit into. Therefore, we have Jesus the “cynic” peasant, the de-mythologized historical persona, the Hellenized eschatological prophet, the kerygma Christ, the Essene, the post-Easter/Early church recreations, and, finally, the Jew. Instead, Judaism should be the foundational starting point in every discussion into the historic Jesus, and not simply a category. This will solely be the result of respecting and interacting with the progress that Jewish/Israeli scholars have made in deciphering, from Jewish Literature to the Rabbinic corpus, the boundaries (or lack thereof) of Judaism in the Second Commonwealth (Palestinian Judaism, if you will). The Jewish religion, as it was expressed in antiquity, has to be seen as something that was not a part of Jesus’ practice before he ushered in Christianity, but rather, what formed the very core of his identity. His life and his thought was disctinctly Jewish. To move beyond that point is to ignore the obvious historical attestation of our literary sources concerning his life (esp. the Synoptic Gospels).
MS Hunter 475 (mid-late 12th century)
The push behind which these problems continue to find support and hinder New Testament scholarship is Markan-priority. Believed to be the most primitive of our canonical gospels, several problems arise with Mark’s representation of Jesus. In Mark, he is a lonely holy man, abandoned by those who followed him. His separation from contemporary Judaism is stark; rebuking the money-changers in the Temple is his first recorded act in Mark (11:15-17). Likewise, there are several elements of Mark’s gospel that bear the influence of sectarian thought. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus frequents the Temple as was common for any Jew of his day. Unfortunately, if Mark is accepted a priori as the most primitive of our gospels then the clear Hebraic nuances of the other gospels, which are unparalled in Mark, are seen as supplemental traditions instead of historical realia. Significant studies have been made, specifically by Israeli/Jewish and Christian scholars of The Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research, to assert that the Synoptic Problem has yet to find a resolution and Markan-priority is not one of them. Unless the tri-lingual landscape (i.e. high levels of language control are attained or at least aspired to in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), a deft knowledge of the geography and history of Judea in antiquity acquired, and an intimate understanding of the literature that reflects the traditions and developments from this time period sought, addressing the Synoptic Problem and discovering the historical Jesus is, at best, a difficult task and, at worst, improbable.
[1] This is no way meant to suggest that Mark’s gospel is an inferior one but that Markan-priority, with all the work that has been done in this area, as a solution for the Synoptic problem needs to be seriously re-addressed. Furthermore, this blog is not an exhaustive discussion concerning the issues regarding the chasm that exists between North American scholarship and Israeli/Jewish scholarship. It is simply to address some of points that are in need of being addressed before we can begin to accept any resolution to the Synoptic Problem a priori.
