Journal: Bulletin for Biblical Research
Volume: BBR 06:1 (NA 1996)
Article: "Judaism: Practice and Belief" 63 b.c.e.-66 c.e. A Review of Recent Works by E. P Sanders
Author: Jacob Neusner

---

BBR 6:1 (1996) p. 167

Judaism: Practice and Belief
63 b.c.e.-66 c.e.
A Review of Recent Works
by E. P Sanders1

Jacob Neusner

University Of South Florida

The requirement of the theology of Christianity accounts for intense interest in the historical description of another religion altogether, namely, Judaism. Specifically, (to use Christian language) because the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, was born in Israel and called King of the Jews, to define Christianity, a fundamental theological task, we have also to define Judaism. But the circumstance in which this (allegedly) historical, descriptive work is undertaken yields results incommensurate to the issue. For to define Judaism in a way useful to the explanation of Christianity, we have also to answer the question: why Christianity, not Judaism? If we cannot come up with an account of what is compelling in the new religion, we also cannot complete our task of definition. That simple fact explains why, for centuries, Christian pictures of Judaism have often presented a distorted picture.

In the present century, different, more comely Judaisms have emerged. Through allegedly historical facts Judaism is portrayed with all the grace of Christianity. Along these same lines, Jesus is represented no longer as a singular, unique figure, but as a rabbi, a Pharisee, a Galilean wonder worker, as a Mediterranean present, as a marginal Jew, as a reforming rabbi (or even a Reform Rabbi)—as anything but what Christianity to begin with affirms: Jesus Christ, God Incarnate. Consequently, these accounts of both Judaism and Jesus the Jew beg the question: if this is Judaism, then why Christianity? And once we recognize that remarkable lacuna—simply stated, we have everything but the main thing—we realize that in theology, salvation is not of the Jews. Nor is theology’s task accomplished through

BBR 6:1 (1996) p. 168

historical research. Jerusalem may relate to Athens, but has no bond with Tübingen or Göttingen. Historical facts have no bearing on theological truth, not because theology requires us to believe what is not true, but because theology makes statements that rest on facts of an other-than-historical order.

An apt illustration of the peculiar results of the conventional confusion of history and theology is given just now by Professor E. P. Sanders, Duke University, in his Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 b.c.e.-66 c.e.2 There Sanders answers every question but the important one: if this was Judaism, then how come Christianity? He introduces his account of Judaism, as “...

visitor : : uid: ()