Journal: Bulletin for Biblical Research
Volume: BBR 07:1 (NA 1997)
Article: Comparing the Traditions: New Testament and Rabbinic Literature
Author: Anthony J. Saldarini

BBR 7:1 (1997) p. 195

Comparing the Traditions: New
Testament and Rabbinic Literature

Anthony J. Saldarini

Boston College

Data from Rabbinic Literature have often been used to illuminate details of New Testament thought and the realia of the texts. Arguments over the proper method for interpreting and using Rabbinic Literature in New Testament study have gradually forced New Testament scholars to take Judaism seriously in its synchronic and diachronic diversity. The increasingly critical and full historical picture of Second Temple and early Rabbinic Judaism and of the Jesus movement and early Christianity emerging from Judaism invites interpreters to read the texts valued by each tradition in the light of one another. This requires recognizing the sharp theological and polemical boundaries erected by thinkers in each tradition as significant claims to truth and authenticity which gave shape to their communities. Equally, we must recognize that such boundaries, with their conflicting theological, ideological, and historical claims, reflect human ideals, needs, and conflicts that emerged from a more homogeneous and shared tradition of thought and practice. Reading texts from both the Rabbinic and early Christian tradition together, with full attention to the integrity of each, does justice to the shared context and valued particularities of each.

Key words: Rabbinic literature, historical Jesus, comparative study

Data from Rabbinic literature have long been used to illuminate details of New Testament life world and thought. John Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Hebrew and Talmudic Exercitations) and the six volumes of Paul Billerbeck’s Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch clustered hundreds of Rabbinic passages around New Testament texts and topics for the convenience of New Testament scholars.1 However, three problems with this approach have arisen.

BBR 7:1 (1997) p. 196

Up until the 1960s Rabbinic traditions about the Second Temple period were uncritically accepted as historically accurate. Even if the problem of dating was mentioned in the discussion, it was ignored in the argument. In recent decades, however, many scholars have subjected Rabbinic traditions to rigorous historical-critical analysis in their literary contexts.2 Secondly, in mid-century standard treatments of early Judaism retrojected a later, normative Rabbinic theology and polity into the Second Temple and the early Rabbinic periods. Since then scholars have become much more respectful of the varieties of Jewish biblical and legal interpretations and customs in antiquity.You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe