Feb 7, 2011
Posted on Feb 7, 2011 in Book Reviews | 3 comments
In the Shadow of the Temple :
Jewish influences on early Christianity
by Oskar Skaursaune
455 Pages
InterVarsity Press, 2002
Until reading this book, I was totally unaware of Skarsaune and his literary offerings. Now, I realize how deprived I have been.
In In the Shadow of the Temple, Skarsaune begins his account of the development of Christianity by first peering into the last two centuries of the Second Temple period, beginning with the Hasmonean dynasty and the subsequent influence of Hellenism upon Jewish religion and culture. From there he sets the stage to masterfully guide us through the first few centuries of the development of Christianity, culminating in “The Constantinian Revolution” of the early fourth century.
Throughout each chapter he weaves the story of the early believers with the fibers of secular historical records (such as Pliny the Elder & Tacitus), Jewish writings (Talmud, Apocrypha, etc.), and the writings of both Jewish and non-Jewish believers (Didache, 1 Clement, etc.). Skarsaune examines as much of the evidences as possible in order to place each piece of the puzzle with care. He is very articulate without being verbose. Following are some highlights from this work.
The impact of this way of looking at first-century Jewish and Christian history has been enormous, and is still felt in New Testament scholarship. There is no doubt, however, that a basic “change of paradigm” is taking place. For one thing, Jewish scholars have argued with great conviction that Jesus should not be placed outside Pharisaism, but within it: when Jesus debates with Pharisees, his own positions can be shown to agree with those of other Pharisaic authorities. In other words, Pharisaism itself was complex; it comprised different opinions; it could comprise those of Jesus. Jesus’ debates with Pharisaic opponents is therefore an intra-Pharisaic debate…It is meaningless and grossly anachronistic to picture Jesus, Peter or Paul as debating with “Judaism” or its representatives, as if they themselves were outside and represented something else, a non-Jewish position.
In this quote, Skarsaune rightly recognizes the intra-house debate between Jesus and the Pharisees of his days, rather than viewing Jesus as an outsider as is typically the case. Jesus has not come to topple the biblical religion in order to establish a new one through subversive tactics. He is in the order of the prophets of old, condemning hypocrisy and calling his people back to repentance through proper relationship to the Torah given at Sinai.
In another insightful passage, Skarsaune hits upon another often overlooked truth in regard to the standard model of prayer for the early believers:
In the days of Jesus the wording and sequence of the elements of the synagogue service had attained such stability that we are fully justified in speaking of a synagogal liturgy. The echoes of the synagogal prayers in the Lord’s Prayer and other early Christian prayers demonstrate that this liturgy was well known to Jesus and the early disciples. We should not think that the early Christians were antiliturgical in their worship gatherings. It is no accident that in Acts 2:42 Luke does not say that the early community “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching … and prayer,” but to “the prayers,” which suggests fixed patterns. All the evidence points to the synagogal liturgy as a source for those prayers.
When examining the letters of Ignatius , Skarsaune aptly notes:
One gets the impression that Ignatius’s relationship to the Old Testament was mainly a literary one. For him, the Old Testament was a book, not a living past which, through traditions and observances, determined his own life and thinking. It is this, more than anything else, that betrays the Gentile Christian. The position of Ignatius may perhaps best be characterized as New Testament orthodoxy. It was the apostolic writings that made him value the Old Testament and love the prophets. The authority of the Old Testament is undisputed, but it is derived from the authority of the gospel.
This was probably one of the most characteristic differences between Jewish believers and believers coming from an entirely Gentile background. It was not a question of doctrinal differences but rather a difference of mentality. For both groups the Old Testament was an authoritative book, and the church of the Gentiles was later to defend the Old Testament bravely and at considerable cost against attacks from within the church and without. But to them the Old Testament was and remained a book, describing a history that was past and finished. To the Jewish believers, it was so much more. Through innumerable cords of tradition, festivals, daily practices, religious concepts, etc., the Jewish believers were bound up with the Old Testament; it was part of their lives.
What we observe in Ignatius may perhaps best be described as a loss of Jewish context.
In this observation, I believe Skarsaune has hit upon one of the primary dysfunctions of modern Christian faith. We have built our house of faith from the top down, rather than from the bottom up due to our subconscious disconnect with the Tanach (the “Old Testament”) and the patriarchs. Yes, Jesus is the pinnacle of our faith. But in order to truly understand his work, we must first have an intimate relationship with the broad foundation of the Tanach, which was laid out in order to elucidate that which would come after it. Without this understanding, the majority of the Scriptures (i.e. the “Old Testament”) becomes exactly as Ignatius views it, as “a history that was past and finished.”
To conclude, the present work from Skarsaune is one which should be in the library of anyone who is serious about understanding the development of Christianity in the first few centuries, and how the apron strings began to be cut (whether for the good or for the bad) from Mother Judaism. Skarsaune does an excellent job at reducing and articulating a plethora of information into layman’s terms in a way which is easily comprehendible and manageable. I look forward to collecting his other offerings as well.
Oct 15, 2010
Posted on Oct 15, 2010 in Downloads, Judaism, Talmud | 0 comments
For those who don’t mind looking through multiple PDF documents, I recently ran across the complete text of the Soncino Babylonian Talmud in English as a series of free downloads. I thought I would post the link here for anyone who has been looking for an electronic source of this complete work, as I have in the past. I’m not sure who is responsible for this sight, I certainly appreciate the work that they’ve done to create it. They also have a few links to other resources (mostly in Hebrew/Aramaic) for things such as the Mishnah, Tosefta, Hebrew versions of both the Bavli & Yerushalmi, etc. Check it out when you have time:
http://www.halakhah.com/
Sep 1, 2010
Posted on Sep 1, 2010 in FFOZ, Miscellaneous | 1 comment
I just wanted to officially welcome Jeremiah Michael (FFOZ staff & son of Boaz Michael) to the Messianic blogosphere. He’s got his own blog now, called Gemara Thoughts. He’s got some great thoughts going, especially by way of defending traditional Jewish understanding of the Scriptures and comparing that the teachings of Yeshua and the Apostles. Be sure to stop in and say hi when you can.
Jun 12, 2006
Posted on Jun 12, 2006 in Miscellaneous, Mishnah, Pirkei Avot | 0 comments
I’ve recently been working my way through The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan), as translated by Judah Goldin. It has been interesting to see even more parallels to the Apostolic Writings from this ancient text. For those interested, Abot de’Rabbi Natan (ARN) is a minor tractate of the Talmud and is an ancient commentary on Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers).
There is a version of it contained in the printed texts of the Babylonian Talmud, but this particular version is based on two versions of ARN which were translated and documented by Solomon Schechter more than a century ago. Schechter had not only translated and compared these two “non-canonical” versions of ARN, but had come upon a third as well. What is interesting to note is that these versions of ARN contain information from Pirkei Avot (PA) in a different form than what exists in the Talmud. The arrangements of the various mishnayot are not parallel to PA, and often it attributes sayings to persons other than whom PA claims as their source. I plan on incorporating some of the information within ARN in my ongoing commentary on PA. I can’t help but feel a sense of amazement at the parallels to the Apostolic Writings in several instances. Here’s a sneak peek at some of what I’ve come across already:
Regarding the statement “Thy belly is like a heap of wheat hedged in by lilies (Cant. 7:3) ” the following statements are made.
“Thy belly is like a heap of wheat refers to the minor commandments that are tender. Hedged in by lilies teaches this: when Israel put them into practice, they are led thereby to the life of the world to come. How so? One’s wife in her menses is alone with him at home. If he is so minded he cohabits with her; if he is otherwise minded he does not cohabit with her. Does then anyone see him, or does anyone know to tell him aught? He fears only Him who commanded against contact with a menstruant.
(Again,) one has suffered a pollution. If he is so minded he bathes; if he is otherwise minded he does not bathe. Does anyone see him, or does anyone know to tell him aught? He fears only Him who commands ritual immersion.
The same may be said of the law of dough offering; and the same may be said of the law of first shearings. These minor commandments, tender as lilies, when Israel put them into practice, lead them to the life of the world to come.”
To me, this brings to mind the warning the Master gives his disciples in Luke’s Gospel:
Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs. “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell.
(Luke 12:1-5, NIV)
Food for thought…
Apr 15, 2006
Posted on Apr 15, 2006 in Judaism, Talmud, Torah | 0 comments
A few people have been asking about where to read the account of Akhnai’s Oven (which can also be “Aknai’s Oven”). This is the link to the source of this text.
Here is the text of the argument:
We learnt elsewhere: If he cut it into separate tiles, placing sand between each tile: R. Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean; and this was the oven of ‘Aknai. Why [the oven of] ‘Aknai? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel’s name: [It means] that they encompassed it with arguments as a snake, and proved it unclean. It has been taught: On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!’ Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. ‘No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,’ they retorted. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!’ Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — ‘No proof can be brought from a stream of water,’ they rejoined. Again he urged: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,’ whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: ‘When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?’ Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined. Again he said to them: ‘If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!’ Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: ‘Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!’ But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It is not in heaven.’ What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline.
Another source for this text (with a slight variation) can be found at this link. Be sure to scroll down to the page 140 marker.
Both Avi ben Mordechai and his inspiration Daniel Gruber use this passage in order to try and cast reproach upon rabbinical authority. The claim is made that the rabbis are actually in opposition to the Written Word of God, and will not listen to Hashem even if they hear from Heaven itself. For some time I was swayed into this line of thinking, until challenged to examine the context of this argument firsthand. Upon a cursory exmination, it appears that I have been duped.
In short, this argument is a classic example of how the rabbis upheld Scripture in a case where a person wanted to try and outwit Scriptural authority through clever devisiveness. R. Eleazer, siding with Akhnai (apparently the owner of the oven, or a nickname for such, meaning “snake” in Aramaic), is the classic representation of the false prophet warned against in Deuteronomy 13. R. Eleazer rules that the clay oven (Read the Biblical laws associated with the contamination of earthen vessels, including ovens), which has been “broken” via being cut apart and mortared back together is oblivious to contamination from contact of a dead animal. First, both Akhnai and R. Eleazer in this scenario are intentionally working to find a loophole around the Biblical ordinance for contamination, and immediately shows a rebellious nature towards the commandments of Hashem.
Second, the halachah of R. Eleazer actually is working to “abolish the Torah” in the same way that many within Christianity are doing today, and have been doing throughout the centuries. Rather than using the written Word of Hashem as the plumbline by which all things are aligned, they follow charismatic leaders with whom are signs and wonders.
Opposite of what we have been lead to believe, the case of Akhnai’s Oven actually is one in which the rabbis are upholding the Written Word of God over the opinions of man, even when backed by signs and wonders.
You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
(Devarim / Deuteronomy 13:3)
In the Shadow of the Temple :
