Worldly Wisdom and Foolish Grace. Barbara Carnegie Campbell
the perceived historical context in which the text was written, and many other layers of literary and historical information if we hope to find any treasure. We can only hope to get closer to some layer of deeper meaning. The unknown imagination of an often unknown author may prevent us from finding the precious information we seek. Even though we may never discover the entire truth of a particular text, it is worth the digging just to get closer than we once were.
It is important to study ancient texts by looking at the original languages in which the texts were written. English translations of early Aramaic and Greek biblical texts, for instance, often reveal textual translations and interpretative decisions that may not have been totally objective. It is far too easy to read what we expect to read or hope to read into a text we are translating. The study of original languages looks for the interpretive option which seems most appropriate in the originating context and culture.
I will do some of my own such dangerous interpretive work in this study. It is my goal to look behind the familiarity of the English translations to hear the original message in its own language. I am not, however, as trained in these ancient languages as are many scholars. I have relied on only a select few translations into English from the original Aramaic or Greek languages and will not attempt to use original languages in looking at translations from the Tanakh or Quran.
Lacking conclusive evidence about the identity of the author/s of each of the Synoptic Gospels, I will use the name ascribed to the gospel as shorthand for the actual author. For instance, I will use “Matthew”, to refer to the unknown author/s of the Gospel of Matthew. This is for the simplification of reading and not because I am assuming that the author’s name was actually Matthew.
During my digging for treasures in scripture, I have used many tools of understanding. In terms of Christian scripture, these layers sometimes included:
an understanding that many texts in the Younger Testament (Gospels and Epistles) are rooted in the Elder Testament (Torah, Prophets, and Wisdom literature),
an understanding that Jesus and most, but not all, of the other Younger Testament writers were Judeans steeped in Torah, not Jews as we know them today or Christians. (Terms which came into use many centuries later.)
an understanding that possible evangelistic polemics could have influenced the retelling of the oral stories passed down to the authors and later work by editors and translators, and
an understanding that Mohammad’s revelation recorded in the Quran is deeply connected with the Abrahamic traditions of both Judaism and Christianity.
Some Christian texts are distorted by shameful anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic sentiments that arose during the centuries following Jesus’ death (such as those that we changed for our Good Friday/Passover Worship). Though original writers, editors or translators may have had the best of intentions, they may have been heavily influenced by the fears and prejudices of their time.
It is disturbing, none the less, that some of their words have been used to spread hatred toward our Jewish brothers and sisters since the time of Jesus. It is important to re-translate these texts which misrepresent and misstate the events of Jesus’ life, trial and death and developed into the dangerous Christian doctrines of Super-secession-ism, and Replacement Theology.
“Supersecessionism” is the understanding that Christianity supersedes Judaism, that Christianity fulfills Biblical Judaism, and that Jews, therefore, who deny that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, fall short in their calling as God’s chosen people. An even more radical form of Super-secession-ism is “Replacement Theology,” which maintains that the Jews are no longer considered God’s chosen people because the Christian gospel has replaced the law and commandments of the Jewish people.
Literary scholars use the word “criticism” to describe various techniques used in studying literature. Many different forms of this sort of criticism have been developed to help us interpret the meaning of ancient texts. The major types of biblical criticism include but are not limited to:
1 “textual” criticism which is concerned with establishing the original or most authoritative text,
2 “philological” criticism which is the study of the biblical languages for an accurate knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, and style of the period,
3 “literary” criticism which focuses on the various literary genres embedded in the text in order to uncover evidence concerning date of composition, authorship, and original function of the various types of writing that constitute the specific literature being examined,
4 “tradition” criticism which attempts to trace the development of the oral traditions that preceded written texts,
5 “form” criticism which classifies the written material according to the pre-literary forms, such as parable or hymn,
6 “redaction” criticism which studies how the documents were assembled by their final authors and editors, and
7 “historical” criticism, which seeks to interpret writings in the context of their historical settings.7
In the last several decades historical criticism has received special attention in the attempt to discover more about the historical nature of a certain figure, such as Jesus. Historical criticism has led us to what may be the most authentic words these historical figures taught or wrote.
Most scholars of ancient literature use textual, contextual and literary criticism, at least, in deciding which words are most likely the authentic words of their ascribed speaker or author, rather than the interpretation of a later author, who may or may not have known the original speaker or author personally, or the interpretation and polemic of a later editor and/or translator. For instance, if the perceivable date of a text seems to be after the death of the ascribed author or from within a community of which the speaker or author could not have been a part, scholars identify that text as not completely original.
Jesus, a Judean Teacher
The terms “Rabbi, Jew, Jewish, and Judaism” came into use around the fourth century CE. Most of these terms come from the word “Judean.” In the area that is now Israel and Palestine, “Judeans” were the people from lands to the north, also called the tribe of Judah, and “Israelites” were from the south and tribe of Israel. Both tribes worshiped Yahweh with only a few differences in their traditions. Over time these two tribes and traditions merged into one people and one faith.
Rabbi David Zaslow who now serves Havurah Shir Hadash, a Jewish Renewal Congregation in Ashland, Oregon, writes this about the Jewishness of Jesus:
It’s easy to utter the words ‘Jesus was Jewish,’ but more difficult for members of either faith to actually imagine this as an historical reality. Many Christians think of the Jewishness of Jesus in the same way they think of the Catholicism of Martin Luther—in other words, he was a Catholic but he broke away from many of the theological doctrines of the church at that time.
Jesus, however, never left Judaism. Along with other great rabbis that Jews study and revere, . . . Jesus was sometimes critical of the often hypocritical and corrupt Temple priesthood led by the Sadducees. But Jesus never left Judaism, even when he was critical of its hypocrisy. He never abandoned the practice of fulfilling the Torah’s commandments.
For the Jews to imagine Rabbi Joshua (Jesus) davvenen (praying) each morning with his talmidim (students) while all are wearing tallit (prayer shawls) and t’fillin (phylacteries) is contrary to two thousand years of Christian art that sought to de-Judaize Jesus and his disciples. 8
Although the title of “Rabbi” was not used until the fourth century, Jesus is called “Rabboni”, which translates as “my teacher,” three times in The Younger Testament. I will use the title, “Rabbi Jesus” in this study in deference to both the life Rabbi Jesus led as a Judean teacher and his later Western Christian identity. We must, however, remember that Rabbi Jesus was not the type of rabbi that we know today. Calling Jesus “Rabbi” is helpful only because it helps us remember the culture and religious traditions that he knew and loved.
Rabbi Jesus preached