Review Article: The Use Of Rabbinic Sources In Gospel Studies -- By: David Instone Brewer

Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 50:2 (NA 1999)
Article: Review Article: The Use Of Rabbinic Sources In Gospel Studies
Author: David Instone Brewer


Review Article: The Use Of Rabbinic Sources In Gospel Studies

David Instone Brewer

Summary

New Testament scholars tend to avoid rabbinic sources because of the problem of dating. This is a genuine problem, but it is not insurmountable. The work of Neusner and others has highlighted this problem but it has also indicated some ways to deal with it. This review article looks at three recent books which demonstrate the usefulness of rabbinic background for studying the Gospels. All three have dealt with the problem of dating, with varying success. Brad Young has produced a useful book on the Parables, though he tends to compare them with the theology of post-Temple Judaism. Roger Aus’ studies sometimes suffer from parallelomania, though his investigation of the woman caught in adultery is masterful. Maurice Casey’s search for the Aramaic behind Mark leads him into creative and sometimes compelling arguments based on rabbinic texts. All three clearly believe that they can identify early rabbinic material and deal with it critically, and on the whole they appear to have succeeded. They have employed traditional scholarship, historical criticism and literary criticism. New Testament scholarship would greatly benefit from the additional use of redaction criticism of rabbinic material, as developed by Neusner and others.

The Problem Of Dating

The key to using rabbinic sources is dating. This principle became the consensus after the publication of the influential first volume of the Brown Judaic Studies.1 There are now more than 300 titles in this series, about half of which are by Jacob Neusner. The first volume was a collection of papers on methodology and of examples of how to

use rabbinic material for New Testament studies. The short concluding paper by Neusner warned about the dangers of dating. The warning was obvious even in the title of his paper: ‘The Use of the Later Rabbinic Evidence for the Study of First-Century Pharisaism’.2

This warning has been taken so seriously that New Testament scholarship has tended to steer clear of Jewish sources. David Aus has complained:

Many NT scholars today employ the genuine problem of dating rabbinic sources…as a cheap pretext for not even considering them…I would be the first to concede that much of what is Amoraic and even some of what is ostensibly Tannaitic is late and of doubtful relevance to NT narratives. Yet a number of Jewish traditions from before 70 CE have been retained in the (patently later) rabbinic writings. Each individual tradition must be analyzed and evaluated on its o...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()