My friend Roar Sørensen has added a comment to some comments on the blog. Thank you! I think it is very important, and today not very controversial, to state that “Jesus fit within the Judaism of his day.” Even though I think this statement should be further qualified, this represents quite a broad consensus. In fact, some of modern exegetical research goes so far in that direction, that it thinks that it is difficult to discern him from the Judaism of his time. However, one must understand that the term Judaisms is more apt to describe the situation (see, for example, Baumgarten, Albert I. 1997. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism. Leiden: Brill.)
With Jesus there is both a continuity and a discontinuity to present-day Judaisms. Acting as an endtime prophet, he proclaim that the time has come, the Kingdom of God is present, and the conditions for entering it. Pursuing the law without compromise, he seems to have streched it as much as possible to fit the Kingdom of God ethics which he had come to proclaim in Israel, and out of Israel. But in no way Jesus tries to starta ‘new’ thing, but to fulfil the old, to realise the covenant through his sacrifice, to release the Spirit of the covenant, and to make the calling of Israel as the teacher of the nations a reality.
History made gentile Christianity the dominating in terms of number, philosophical and theological culture etc. This belongs to the greatest problems in the history of the Church; due to this, it is difficult for us today what Christianity was meant to be.
Understanding that Jesus was and is a circumcised Jewish God-man, who took his Jewishness seriously is a fundamental truth, which challenges us to search for what Christian identity is meant to be. Our Saviour is a Jew. This also necessitates that Christians (i.e. people of the Jewish Messiah, since the word ‘Christ’ only is a translation of ha-Mashiach) understand that they have a fundamental association with his own people, the Jews.
David Nyström
2 years ago
Anders, have you read D. Boyarins “Border Lines”? He makes a very interesting case stating that not only Jesus but also the early Christians with their belief in Jesus fitted quite easily within the multi-coloured Judaism of the day. “Judaism” as contrasted to “Christianity”, he claims, was something which was later created in the rabbinic and patristic periods.
I certainly don’t agree with everything he writes, but it is an interesting perscpetive…
Anders Gerdmar
2 years ago
David, yes, this pespective by Boyarin is interesting indeed, and other authors do claim the same. I think it is basically true. But what seems to have been challenging is the claim that Jesus is ‘more than’ even the greatest figures in Judaism.
Kevin P. Edgecomb
1 year ago
Yes, and this fits in with what, say, Neusner writes, particularly in the conclusion to A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, wherein it is precisely the presentation by Jesus of Himself as an authority, rather than as one drawing on the established authorities of the sages, that causes a disconnection to occur between (proto)Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity.
But it is precisely this revelation of God as love (as well as personal and present and giving interpretation of the Law that He Himself had given!), with love motivating the halakhah of our Lord in His disputations with the Pharisees that shows (oddly enough) both a continuation of the old and a discontinuity of the new. A bifurcation happens here in Israel: divergent bases for halakhah, with one group being much more easily accomodating to gentile incorporation, led to two distinct groups. This latter aspect contributed to the more permanent break between the two, and the reinforcement of borders. There was, of course, for Rabbinic Judaism, no getting over the God-man! With time, this halakhic aspect was lost, as the Fathers adapted to the changing makeup of the Church and approched discussions in ways that were appropriate for the majority: through recognizable forms of Hellen(ist)ic rhetoric. But in Matthew (which I think must be recognized as the earliest Gospel, as it is only there that the elements of disputation remain in a coherent order and context) we find a record of Jesus arguing with Jews as a Jew would. In Luke and Mark, the audiences addressed were later and different, and so the sayings were economically adapted for the benefit of the new hearers.
At least that’s the direction I think the evidence points, these days.
Keep up the good work and the faith, Anders! It’s refreshing!