Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:35:35.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Once Again: The Use of Rabbinic Material

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Lou H. Silberman
Lou H. Silberman
Affiliation:
3202 East Third Street, Tucson, AZ 85716, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sixteen years ago I published a brief study in NTS1 in which I ‘underscore[d] the “tackiness” of using rabbinic material in support of or against an interpretation of NT material’. The present article returns to that subject by means of an examination of the use of a passage in the Babylonian Talmud in the magisterial two volume work by Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah.2 It is not, however, intended to be a comment on anything in this massive work other than the discussion on pages 376–7. My attention to the passage was drawn by a comment on an enclosure that came with the volumes: ‘…No one concerned with Jewish-Christian relations should fail to study his deliberate, sensitive and nuanced treatment of the Trial of Jesus.’

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 153 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Anent the Use of Rabbinic Material’, New Testament Studies 24 (1978) 415–17.Google Scholar

2 New York: Doubleday, 1994.

3 Loc. cit.

4 Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1951)Google Scholar. The discussion of the passage before us begins in the middle of page 486 and runs to the bottom of page 500. It has provided the cues for the present study although my analysis moves somewhat differently.

5 Sanhedrin 6.1.

6 It is necessary to understand precisely what a baraita is. Strack, H. L. in his Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1931) 4–5Google Scholar, after defining it as ‘the generic name for all tannaitic teaching and dicta not included in the Mishna of Rabbi [Judah ha-Nasi]’ goes on to say: ‘It is often difficult to grasp the full sense of a Baraitha because we cannot form an opinion of the original context of which it formed a part.’ He then noted: ‘Statements which are cited in the Babyl. Talmud from a Baraitha appear frequently in the Palest, as dicta of an Amora.’ In other words there are matters quoted as baraitot that are not from the tannaitic period. Brown cites M. Goldstein as dating the baraita in TalBab tradition before 220, i.e., the end of the tannaitic period. That does not necessarily suggest an early tradition.

7 I am neither affirming nor denying any Jewish role in the matter. All I am suggesting is that this passage be examined for its value.

8 It is interesting to note that Acts 5.20 and 10.39, cited by Brown to prove crucifixion are cited by Lauterbach to the contrary: ‘Jesus whom ye slew and hanged on a tree’ and ‘whom they slew and hanged on a tree’ (A.V.). Goldstein whom Brown cites (see above note 6) mentions this on p. 27 of the work cited.

9 M. Yebamot 16.3. Lauterbach, op. cit. pp. 494–6.

10 Deut. 13.7–12:…Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him… stone him to death….

11 Sanh. 107b.

12 To this see both Lauterbach, op. cit. 481–90 and brief note in Herford's, R. T. edition of Pirke Aboth (New York: 1930) 17.Google Scholar

13 Lauterbach cited a number of other instances that cannot be taken as evidence of any real knowledge concerning Jesus.