Before the Holocaust, only few exegetes did serious work on the Jewish background to the New Testament. I have discussed this in my book, Roots of theological anti-Semitism. A rare example of a ‘modern’ scholar is Johannes Weiß, who is foreboding the Jewish turn in exegesis which is beginning to develop in the 1950’s. Another is in certain ways Gerhard Kittel, who saw that ‘Palestinian’ (an anachronistic term, but a technical one in New Testament historiography) Judaism as the natural environment for Jesus, but his anti-Semitism silenced his voice on these matters.
But what would have happened, had not exegesis got delivered from the spell of anti-Jewish ideology? There is no doubt that one can talk of such a ‘Jewish turn’, its breakthrough coming with E.P. Sanders and Krister Stendahl, and many others engaging in exegesis with a more historical orientation. This turn made self-evident what was only quite rare in the early 20th century: to regard the New Testament and Early Christianity as fundamentally Jewish.
Fascinating topic, to which you have contributed greatly. But was there not a similar larger aim already in Strack-Billerbeck and certainly Schuerer?
I wrote something very similar to this, drawing on some notes I took while reading your Roots of Theological Anti-semitism.
Weiss really was ahead of his time. Had he lived longer, I think his impact would have been quite far-reaching. On nearly every point he anticipates the developments of the 1970s and the “New Perspective on Paul”. What a fascinating character!
I fully agree. Funny enough, though, his disciple Bultmann had not learned from his master, being too identified with what I call the Enlightenment-oriented research tradition, with which in many respects Weiß courageously broke.
Of Schürer I have not yet written, but he stands firmly in the Enlightenment-oriented research tradition, and his chapter about Judaism and the law is a depressing read. Strack-Billerbeck belongs to the salvation oriented research tradition and they show a much greater respect for Judaism as such. Yet, it has its critics because of what may be a caricaturing of Jews and Judaism even here.
Absolutely. It’ll be fascinating to read what you can dig out on Schürer. I haven’t read the first edition of his history, but the second edition edited by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar is now a classic, and still regularly recommended, if only because no one else has put together such a detailed work on the period. I see plenty of single volume treatments, but none that I’ve yet read are satisfactory. Stemberger has corrected the failings of the earlier Strack-Billerbeck introduction, thankfully. It could rightly stand alone as an entirely new work under Stemberger’s name.
Isn’t Bultmann odd? He’s still more popular than he deserves, in my opinion.
I think you are quite right about Schürer: the reason ‘he’ retains his position is because none has still done the work he did. However, that is greatly needed. As for Bultmann his work is so over-ideologised that not much is useful for today’s scholarship. Yes, Stemberger has done a great job, and I think he in act is respected for he work as being his own.
Dr. Gerdmar:
Greetings! I have a question, please. In your book “Roots of Theological anti-Semitism”, do you approach the subject of anti-Semitism in the Orthodox Church, particularly in Russia and Greece? Is the charge of anti-semitism against such as Dr. Nikolai Velimirovich (who was a bishop in the Serbian Church), warranted? Were some of the Church Fathers anti-semitic?
Thank you
Den judiska vändningen är onekligen välkommen visavi det exegetiska studiet. Jag kan dock uppleva att denna s a s tredje fas av Jesusforskningen på något sätt negligerar de aspekter av Jesu förkunnelse som bryter av mot det kontextuellt judiska… Jag vet inte om det är tillbörligt att s a s korrigera evangeliernas vittnesbörd om Jesus mot bakgrund av andra tempelperiodens judendom. Varför är det så osannolikt att Jesus (ur teologisk synvinkel) i sin undervisning och praxis kom med något essentiellt nytt (visavi samtidens judendom eller den tidiga kyrkans förkunnelse)?
Jag tror att man i någon mening (dock försiktigt) måste tillgripa dissimilaritetskriteriet för att göra rättvisa åt evangeliernas vittesbörd om Jesus.
Båda exegeter du nämner Stendahl och Sanders går långt i sin korrigering av Jesus…
Magnus
Jag instämmer i att man absolut inte behöver köpa hela paketet bara för att man inser att en judisk vändning ur vetenskaplig synpunkt är det enda möjliga. Dissimilaritetsriteriet är ytterst besvärligt att använda på ett trovärdigt sätt. Stendahls produktion är ju egentligen ytterst lite; han visar hur man är inflytelserik utan att skriva tjocka böcker. Sanders har gjort ett pionjärarbete både när det gäller Paulus och Jesus, men har ingalunda rätt i allt. Vad man behöver är att både ta fasta på Jesu kontinuitet med samtidens judendom – den är uppenbar – och visa at han kom med något radikalt nytt. Alltså: Jewish turn: yes! Men om Jesus inte varit annorlunda hade han varken väckt hopp eller vrede.