Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of

Bible and Theology

http://btb.sagepub.com

The Use of Rabbinic Literature For New Testament Research

George Wesley Buchanan
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1977; 7; 110
DOI: 10.1177/014610797700700303

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009

 The Use of Rabbinic Literature
For New Testament Research
Introduction
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea
Scrolls there has been an increased in-
terest in rabbinic literature, but the
methodology by which it has been used
in New Testament studies is under
question. The following essay is a brief
survey of the use of rabbinic literature
in New Testament study together with
some suggested legitimate methods for
using Jewish sources beneficially. A few
examples will be given only to illustrate
the methods - not to prove individual
points.
From Reimarus to Sandmel
When H.S. Reimarus applied his
knowledge of rabbinic literature to NT
research,’ more than two hundred years
ago, he already had at his disposal the
extensive collections of parallels to the
NT prepared by Lightfoot’2 and
Schoettgen.’ During Reimarus’ lifetime
Wetstein prepared his large collection of
classical parallels to the NT to which he
added a few rabbinic parallels as well:4
By comparing theological thought-forms
found in rabbinic literature to similar
thought-forms in the NT, Reimarus con-
cluded that, like John,8 Simon,’ and
Eleazar/ Jesus also was a political
messiah who attempted to restore the
promised land to the chosen people.
German Christians were not completely
happy about his scholarly contribution to
religion, so the rabbinic literature which
supported his thesis was neglected by
NT scholars for many years.’ Schleier-
macher and Ritschl turned instead to
psychology to discover the inner,
spiritual meaning of Jesus’ thought and
teachings, and Johannes Weiss&dquo; found in
Persian, dualistic cosmology a
framework on which to hang the
teachings of Jesus without considering
the political significance of Jewish
110
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
messianism which the rabbis described.
Although scholars like Schleiermacher
and Weiss had many followers, others,
like Strauss, raised so many questions
about their logic and methodology that
those who affirmed Schleiermacher’s
and Weiss’s views generally did so
defensively and apologetically. 10
Scholars are really not comfortable with
their heads in the sand, so it was in-
evitable that sooner or later the question
of rabbinic parallels to the NT would be
reexamined. Following the resurgence
of rabbinic studies near the turn of the
century,&dquo; Billerbeck began to look into
rabbinic literature to find the meaning
of the Kingdom of God and continued un-
til he had prepared a five volume set of
commentaries on the Not,&dquo; based on rab-
binic parallels. This set has been used by
many scholars who knew almost nothing
about rabbinic literature to check a few
parallels quickly in the German to sub-
stantiate whatever theory they were try-
ing to prove.&dquo; It was this use of
Billerbeck’s collection to which Sandmel
principally objected.
Sandmel’s Objection
Parallelomania. -
Sandmel called
the careless and exaggerated use of rab-
binic parallels, principally with the aid
of Billerbeck’s collection of references,
&dquo;parallelomania. &dquo;14 He did not object to
the use of rabbinic material in NT
research, per se, but he pointed to
fallacies resulting from the use of rab-
binic parallels for interpreting the NT
apart from the contexts of both, II from
the anachronistic assumption that all in-
fluences must always go one way, 18 and
from the apologetic goal of utilizing
these parallels to show that the teaching
of Jesus was always greater and better
than that of the rabbis.&dquo; These fallacies
have been widely practiced. The
problems of anachronism and ulterior
motive will be illustrated further.
Anachronism. - One of the most
astute and cautious scholars who relates
rabbinic literature to NT studies is
David Danube,&dquo; who regularly admits
that there is a problem of anachronism
in many of his essays. When using a
narrative from late rabbinic literature
as if it were a source for some NT
pericope, he normally admits that the
rabbinic pericope now is preserved in a
later document than any part of the NT,
and, of course, it could have come into
existence late as well, under the in-
fluence of the NT. But then he follows
with the valid claim that it could also
have been in existence much earlier. 19
The conditional hesitancy with which
Daube makes his suggestions leaves him
almost beyond criticism, but he lures
the reader to be less cautious than he.
NT students might easily become con-
vinced and drop Daube’s caution and
reservations, claiming suggestion
dogma. That is a mistake.
The oral tradition -
Practically iden-
tical to the problem of earlier traditions
is the oral tradition. Gerhardsson’s
fascinating study calls attention to the
heavy dependence of early Jewish
scholarship on memory. 80 He insisted
that many Jewish teachings were never
written down at all, and most only much
later than their original formulation.
Herford gave rabbinic literature first
attention in one of his books, because
&dquo;Rabbinical literature ... as oral
teaching ... is older than the
Apocryphal books, although the written
form of it is later. &dquo;°1 The facility of the
Oriental mind to memorize, the ex-
istence of secret religious teachings that
were taught orally, and the practical
necessity of memorizing those teachings
which a rabbi needed to teach when he
was not near a library, all seem to be
true. The problem of the oral tradition,
both in the NT and in rabbinic studies, is
not that it never existed, but that it can-
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
not be used with confidence. In NT
study, the oral tradition has been used to
explain away difficulties that would
otherwise weaken a hypothesis. In rab-
binic literature, the oral tradition has
been used to claim early origin for late
literature. Since the content of the oral
tradition is no longer available, no one
can deny that it might have contained
that which the theorist needs to justify
his position. On the other hand, however,
it no longer exists at all except in that
which has been written down.
Therefore, any attempt to use this non-
existent material is guesswork.
Although Sandmel might agree with
many of the conclusions reached both by
Daube and Gerhardsson, he would
probably criticize both of them for
assuming that all the influence must go
one way. Scholars should systematically
look both ways, always searching only
for the truth, whether this means the
rabbinic text clarifies the NT text, the
as NT text clarifies the rabbinic text, or
both. One body of literature should not
be treated as if it were merely a tool for
maintaining the other.
Apologetic research. - The habit of
using rabbinic literature for ulterior
purposes, to which Sandmel objects, is
not a practice that is unique to Christian
scholars. Jewish scholars are just as
guilty of this fault as Christains. It is
just as reprehensible if done by one
group as the other, but the extent of
error resulting from this kind of
manipulation seems concentrated in the
academic defense of the Pharisees and
therefore makes a good illustration.
Rabbinic scholars like Abrahams,88
Finkelstein,88 Ginsburg,u Herford,811 and
Moore,&dquo;6 defended Judaism against iden-
tification with the Pharisees whom
Jesus attacked by claiming, without
evidence, that all rabbinic literature
was written by Pharisees.9, They then
selected those passages in this literature
which were moderating, pacifistic, and
which spoke favorably of Rome and
111
omitted many of the narrow,
militaristic, segregationistic passages
that resembled those Pharisees describ-
ed by Josephus and the NT.88 From this
section of material, composed from two
to eight hundred years after the time of
Jesus, they argued that the picture of
the Pharisees painted by Paul, the
gospel writers, and Josephus was
wrong.°~ They further claimed that the
great majority of Palestinian Jews of
Jesus’ time were Pharisees.&dquo; To reach
these conclusions, they had to ignore the
wars of A.D. 66-70 and 132-135, which
were fought by the majority of
Palestinian Jews.81 They also had to dis-
miss all the descriptive, even if tenden-
tious, contemporary reports of the
Pharisees by Josephus and the NT. Once
they set out with an apologetic goal, they
dismissed the contrary evidence and
broke all the rules necessary to achieve
their purpose.
Although Billerbeck did not carry out
his apologetic goal to the extent rabbinic
scholars have carried theirs, NT
scholars who used Billerbeck’s selection
of texts have continued where
Billerbeck left off, so the result is the
same. Billerbeck selected from the
literature those passages he considered
relevant from his own point of view.
Other students, who have assumed that
his abbreviated list was complete and
his references accurate, selected from
that ’list those passages which supported
their arguments, and, in so doing,
sometimes misrepresented the rabbinic
point of view.89
Suggestions
To reduce the kind of abuses dins-
cussed, NT students should try to
observe the following precautions:
1. Work only with written materials,
making no attempt to recover a
hypothetical oral tradition.
2. Utilize all available parallels - not
just a tendendious selection. This
requires the use of concordances and
wirlp rpariina
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
3. Use the comparisons faithfully, in,
context, with no prejudicial need to dis-
tort the evidence in order to reach a
&dquo;satisfactory&dquo; conclusion.
4. Avoid forcing ambiguous evidence
to contradict factual, datable, descrip-
tive historical literature.
5. Use the literature preserved by the
rabbis judiciously, in relationship to
Josephus, Philo, the Dead Sea Scrolls,
and Samaritan literature in order to see
a more comprehensive picture.
6. Do not accept that which is
historically anachronistic or impossible,
as scholars have done with the
Pharisees.
These are not the only mistakes possi-
ble when using rabbinic literature in NT
research. In fact, there are so many
problems that some scholars are asking
if there is any legitimate way to use rab-
binic literature at all to shed light on NT
literature. This is a fair question.
Possibilities and Problems
More difficulties. If there is any
-
direct influence between the Jewish
literature of the middle ages and the
Christian literature of the first and
second centuries, it would seem that the
later Jewish material would have been
influenced by the earlier Christian
material and not vice versa.&dquo;
Nonetheless, there is preserved in rab-
binic literature some material which
has been faithfully copied from sources
which pre-date the NT. When this has
been isolated, it can be used just as any
other Jewish literature written before
the time of Christ, but this is not easy to
identify and establish. It is not enough,
for example, to assume, as Daube,&dquo;
Gerhardsson,35 and others have done,
that the terminus ad quem of any rabbinic
saying is the date of the rabbi to which
the saying has been attributed. The
_ fallibility of rabbis in reporting ac-
curately is evident when the same
statement is reported to have been said
by two different rabbis.&dquo; Later rabbis
micht iust as well have attributed their
112
own opinions to earlier rabbis as the
later church might have attributed later
opinions to Jesus. Just because rabbinic
literature has not received the careful,
critical examination for validity that the
NT has does not mean that it has no need
of such study and can be accepted at
face value uncritically. Of course, it is
much easier to find fault than to provide
directions, but some positive guides
have also been offered which will;
receive attention next.
Synoptic parallels. -
Early sayings
contained in later documents must be
demonstrated as early, form-critically,
in relationship to datable events or
literature. Since very little form-
criticism has been done with rabbinic
literature, the amount of demonstrably
early literature now known is very
small. Guttmann has prepared parallel
lists of all mishnaic passages that are
synoptically related to the Tosephta.&dquo;
Vermes collected several narratives
which elaborate on a scripture passage.
By comparing the targumim, Pseudo-
Philo, Philo, Josephus, the Tosephta,
Mekilta, and other rabbinic sources, he
was able to show various tendencies in
scriptural interpretation. He also show-
ed symbolic meanings of words by com-
paring a term in one document with its
interpretation in parallel position in the
other,.&dquo; Finkel has put in parallel
columns rabbinic sayings about Moses,
Elijah, Elisha, and gospel sayings about
Jesus that are similar. He has also
shown how the gospels and rabbinic
literature have used Isa 61: 1-7.39 Mc-
Namara has shown many traditions
parallel to the Palestinian targumin,’°
and Neusner has pointed up all the main
parallels in rabbinic literature that were
related to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai
and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.’1
These parallels provide many insights
about the way in which documents are
related to one another, but only oc-
casionally do they enable scholars to
date the tradition. One of the most
113
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
fascinating attempts at this was made
by Ranee Bloch. 42
Dating a tradition. Bloch found a
-
traditional story of the announcement to
Pharaoh of the birth of Moses in the
following documents: Jerusalem
Targum, the Chronicle of Moses, Sefer
Ha-Yasher, Yalkut Shimoni, Sefer Ha-
Zikhronot, Babylonian Talmud,
Sanhedrin (101a) and Sotah (12b),
Rashi’s Commentary on Exodus, Pirke
Rabbi Eliezer, Tanhuma, and Exodus
Rabbah. Some of these are late
medieval documents, but the same
tradition was also known to Josephus
when he wrote his AntiqUitiC8 of the Jews
in the first century. This means that one
form of this narrative was circulated
early enough to allow the possibility that
this tradition was known by the author of
the Gospel of Matthew and was influen-
tial in providing inspiration or details
used in the composition of the birth
narrative of Jesus. When a story, such
as this, is found in many sources, the
various forms should be studied synop-
tically for relationships. If an earlier
document preserved a story with some
additions, explanations, or midrashic
clarifications on a text that is now con-
tained in a later source, it is reasonable
to think that the later document preserv-
ed accurately, without commentary,
material that was composed before the
earlier source which had both the text
and the commentary.&dquo; In this case the
narrative in the later document may be
treated as if it were even earlier than
the earlier one. If the earlier source is
Philo or Josephus, this is early enough to
be significant for NT research from the
standpoint of direct dependence.
Following Bloch’s lead, McNamara
found some instances in which the NT
author quoted from the OT a passage
that differed from both the Massoretic
text and the LXX, but agreed precisely
with the text of one of the Palestine
targumim.&dquo; In these cases it is fair to
assume that these particular targum
passages had been composed and were
available as textual sources for NT
authors. There are still more instances
where the same tradition is preserved
only in these targumim and the NT. It is
certain that the traditions existed early
enough to have been utilized by both, but
it is not certain that one text was the
source of the other.’5
Conclusions concerning dates and
direct dependence reached as carefully
as Bloch and McNamara have done are
much more satisfactory than the mere
suggestion that although the pericope is
contained in a late document, it might
really have been written earlier, but no
one knows for sure.
History and midrash. - Some rab-
binic material can be dated by the way
in which reference is made to historical
events or characters. Geiger, for in-
stance, took careful note of Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan on Dt 33:11, And those
who hate him shall not stand again. The
targum reads, &dquo;Bless the Lord, the sub-
stance of the house of Levi which gives a
tithe of the tithe and accepts willingly
the work of the hands of Elijah the priest
who sacrifices on Mount Carmel. Smite
through the loi ns of Ahab his enemy, and
the neck of the false prophets who rise up
against him. There shall be no place for
the foot of those who hate Yotlanan the
high priest.&dquo; This seems to refer to John
Hyrcanus (135-105 B.C.) and to have
been written while he was still alive, and
it still seemed likely to his supporters
that his enemies would be overcome.
Later generations discredited him so
much, however, that it is unlikely that
someone would have written this after
that time.&dquo; Olmstead held that this
prayer was written by a contemporary
of John Hyrcanus right af ter the con- -
quest of the Samaritans.&dquo; Further-
more, it is clearly an interpolation made
on the original text which had already
been written by that time. Therefore,
not only this passage in Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan, but the immediate context
A
114
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
into which it has been interpolated,
seems to have been written no later than
the second century B.C. This does not
mean, however, that all of Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan is as early as this
unit,&dquo; much less that other targumim
are pre-Christian. There is still a great
deal of scholarly debate about the
provenance of the targumim. Only those
parts of them may be treated as if they
were pre-NT documents that have been
shown to be earlier than the NT by some
methods such as those used by Geiger,
Bloch, and McNamara.
Distinctive literary forms. - A
Japanese student, Yoshihiro Sakaguchi,
has collected more than three hundred
rabbinic parables that are very similar
to those in the NT. When he has com-
pleted this collection and classified the
various parables according to the rabbis
to which they have been attributed, iden-
tified the parallel parables, and shown
the similarity in form of certain
characteristic parables, his research
will be useful to NT students to study in
comparison with those parables
attributed to Jesus. An unpublished
collection of choeiai found in rabbinic
literature, when compared with those
found in the works of the Greek
philosophers and the church fathers will
also be useful for a reanalysis of form-
critical studies in the NT. Both of these
forms may also be useful for dis-
tinguishing the teachings attributed to
Jesus and other rabbis, from those
teachings more likely to have been
genuine, but these suppositions will not
be known for sure until the intended
research has been completed.
Undated rabbinic literature. -
Although there are parts of rabbinic
literature that can be demonstrated to
be of pre-Christian composition, this is
not true for the great majority. The
burden is on the scholar who uses the
rabbinic literature to show, point-by-
point, why some pericope contained in a
document belonging in the middle ages
was originally composed hundreds of
years before. If the only value of rab-
binic literature to NT research was to
find and use only that which was
demonstrably pre-Christian, upon which
there might have been direct
dependence for the composition of the
NT, its value for NT research would be
very limited. Sandmel’s complaint was
not that rabbinic literature which had
been shown to be of early composition
was used as direct sources for the NT,
but rather that scholars used rabbinic
literature promiscuously and
anachronistically as if it had all been
composed before the time of Christ, or
that all the tradition parallel to the NT
must have been composed early. These
are false premises. There are ways,
however, in which this literature is im-
portant for NT research which do not
require a knowledge of the date of com-
position, either for the rabbinic or the
NT texts involved. These are useful
because both Christianity and later rab-
binic Judaism developed from earlier
types of Judaism, of which both
preserve some of the same traditions.
When this is true, the meaning of an ex-
pression, custom, practice, or belief
found in one body of literature can
sometimes be clarified by the use of the
same one in another body of literature.
This increases our knowledge of the
background held in common. Some of
this involves a familiarity with the laws
involved.
Rabbinic Laws
The Day of Atonement. - In the NT
there is a great deal of teaching about
the importance of the forgiveness of
sins, reconciliation, and the atoning
sacrifice. Moreover, in the Mishnah and
in the Tosephta, there is a tractate
devoted to the Day of Atonement - the
OT bases on which it was established, its
practices, and the associated doctrines.
Here it says that on the Day of
Atonement God will forgive the sins of
the covenanters only on the following
115
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
conditions: 1) that the believer repents
of his sin (Mishnah, Yoma, 8:8-9), 2)
that he becomes reconciled to his fellow
covenanter, making whatever
restitution is necessary to gain
forgiveness from him (Mishnah, Yoma,
8:9), and 3) that he bring a gift adequate
to fulfill the commandment to the Torah
in relationship to the kinds of sins com-
mitted (Tosephta, Baba Kamma 10:18
(p. 368); Song of Songs Rabba 5 (2, 2).
Once these laws are known, the com-
mandment in the Sermon on the Mount
that the believer leave his gift at the
altar, first become reconciled to his
brother, and then return and offer his
gift makes good sense (Matt 5:23-24).
Since Paul believed that Jesus was the
atonement sacrifice given, his emphasis
on the ministry of reconciliation is un-
derstandable (II Cor 5 :18-19 ; Rom 5 :6-
11 ; Col 1:12-14, 21-23; 2 :13-14 ) , and the
teaching in I John of Jesus as a sin offer-
ing for our sins (I John 2:2) is consistent
with Jewish atonement theology.
Rules of logic. Rabbi Hillel propos-
-
ed seven principles of logic to which
Rabbi Ishmael added six more. The
earliest literature to preserve these is
Tannaitic,&dquo; and therefore might, a
priori, be either earlier or later than NT
times in formulation. The inference
from minor to major, however, was
applied both in the OT and the NT, 50
which means this rule, at least, was
accepted in Jewish circles in NT times.
If others can be similarly demonstrated,
they should also be accepted as pre-
Christian rules. Because Sifra preserves
these as accepted principles, NT
students, familiar with them, can
recognize their application and intent
and therefore be more correct in in-
terpreting the passages in which they oc-
cur.
Rules of In the Mishnah
hospitality. -
are given the conditions under which an
observant Jew is permitted to receive
guests into his home (Mishnah, Demai,
2:3; see also Tosephta, Demai, 4:9 (pp.
49-50). He might admitt another
observant Jew at any time. In fact he
was obligated to do so to prevent the
traveling observant Jew from suffering
because of his inability to find approved
food to eat and undefiled quarters in
which to reside. But the observant Jew
was not allowed to admit the non-
observer into his house in the non-
observer’s own clothing (Mishnah,
Demi, 2:3). This presumes that the
non-observer could either bathe and
change into the garments of his host and
be admitted, or he could not be admitted
at all. This custom explains the com-
mandment to greet no one on the way
and only to accept hospitality in the
house of someone who was worthy (Luke
10 : 5 ; Matt 10 :11-12 ) . It is also true of the
commandment not to greet anyone
whose belief was not the same as those
of the group (II John 10). The strong
rebuke of the church leader who refused
to provide hospitality to strangers who
could not eat the food of the Gentiles
shows that Christians also were familiar
with the mishnaic rules of exclusive
hospitality (III John 7-10). The same
rules were also observed by the Essenes
and explain the close relationship
between hospitality, change of gar-
ments, baptism, and initiation ( J W II
( 124-132 ) . It is not important to know
just when this mishnaic passage was
composed, because it records a rule that
was evidently taken for granted by other
Jews and Christians, but its expressed
legislation in the Mishnah provides a
basis from which to begin research into
other Jewish and Christian literature to
check the extent of its application. Other
practices, such as Sabbath observance,
tithing, sacrificing, worship, maintain-
ing class and sex distinctions, ablutions,
divorce, oaths, and vows to which
allusion is made in the NT, have special
rules in the Mishnah, Tosephta, and the
Talmuds to indicate the conditions early
Christians considered when they prac-
ticed these customs. There is always the
116
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
possibility, of course, that rabbinic rules
originated after the fall of Jerusalem
and did not apply to Palestine in Jesus’
day. Therefore it is wise to check the
rules included in rabbinic literature with
practices followed in the OT, the works
of Philo, Josephus, and the Dead Sea
Scrolls. If the rabbinic rules govern
widely practiced traditions, they will be
faithfully reflected in other Jewish and
Christian literature. The following are
some examples of cases where this can
be done.
Widespread Traditions
Sabbatical eschatology. - In many
places in rabbinic literature end-times
were calculated in terms of sabbath
years and jubilee. 51 Rabbis associated
the rules governing the sabbath years
and jubilees given in the Pentateuch to
the future of the nation, but this was not
a practice unique to them. It was also
reflected in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel,
Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the
Not.&dquo; Dates of these various documents
are only important for applying the
general rules to particular events in
history. For purposes of this study, it
does not matter whether the rabbinic
tradition was put into writing before the
NT or after it, since direct dependence
is not a basic concern. Both the authors
of the NT and the rabbis interpreted
their religious faith according to the
customs that preceded both.
Treasury of merits,. - Rabbinic
literature need not always be the only,
the earliest, or even the principle source
to be used together with the NT to
clarify NT terms. The research student
may start at any point the OT, NT,
-
rabbinic literature, apocrypha,
pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, or the
Samaritan literature but he should
-
trace the term throughout this literature
for a full understanding. For example,
he may be provoked by the reference in
the Sermon on the Mount about &dquo;laying
up treasuries in heaven&dquo; (Matt 6 :19 ) to
inquire about the extent and meaning of
the expression, &dquo;treasury of merits.&dquo;
He could begin equally well, however, in
the Pentateuch with the observation that
the Israelites could not enter the promis-
ed land until the sins of the Amorites
were complete (Gen 15 :16 ) , or many
similar contexts in this other sur-
rounding literature in which the authors
took for granted the belief that God kept
a record of sins and merits, and the
future of a nation depended on the status
of the record. Rabbinic usage here does
not show the origin of the notion, which
is at least as old as the Pentateuch, but
it provides one more source to compare
with others. When the belief is found
very prevalent and consistent in its
meaning throughout all other Hebrew,
Samaritan, and Jewish literature over a
long period of time, it would be normal
to expect that the NT would reflect a
very similar meaning when using the
same terms, unless the context rebelled
against it.
Research in Words
Meanings. - The meaning of a word is
determined by its use in context. The
more contexts available, the more
precisely it is possible to reach an
adequate definition. Since the NT is now
in Greek, and rabbinic literature is in
Hebrew or Aramaic, this requires some
indirect ways of comparing terms.
From Hebrew to Greek. - After the
usages of a term have been checked in a
complete concordance of NT Greek,°8
the same term may also be checked in a
LXX concordance°4 which shows what
the Hebrew equivalents in the
Massoretic text are to the LXX term in-
volved. Once these are found, they may
be examined in a complete concordance
to the Mishnah,1I1I Tosephta,°° Tannaitic
midrashim,1I7 and the Babylonian
Talmud. 118 Through some such route
Rengstorf learned that the Hebrew word
corresponding to the Greek apo.stolus was
the Hebrew slyh and the Mishnah says
117
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
that a man’s slyh was like the man
himself (Mishnah, Berakoth, 5:5). This,
in contexts, meant le9al identity of the
apostle with the one who sent him, and
offers important insight into the mean-
ing of the office of an apostle and the
significance of apostolic Christology.1I8
There are some terms in Greek for
which the OT Hebrew or Aramaic
equivalent is only misleading. Such a
term is the Greek eggiken, whose mean-
ing determines whether Jesus said:
&dquo;the Kingdom of God has arrived&dquo; or
&dquo;the Kingdom of God is coming near.&dquo;
The verb e9giken was not used enough in
the OT to establish its meaning. Its cor-
responding Hebrew verb is qrb, which
would not help the student with this
meaning. He must then check the con-
cordances for the Hebrew equivalent of
&dquo;the Kingdom of Heaven.&dquo; By so doing,
he would soon find the expression, &dquo;The
time of the Kingdom of Heaven ‘h9y’
that it might be revealed&dquo;. 80 Then a con-
cordance might be checked further to
find other usages of the term ’hgy’ to
learn how close the expectations implied
are to fulfillment. In ways like this
Hebrew and Aramaic words may be
checked in the rabbinic literature to im-
prove our understanding of the Greek
terms in the NT, but these are not the
only possibilities.
Loan words. - Some words in the
Greek NT are only transliterations of
the Hebrew or Aramaic terms intended.
Some words such as messias (John 1:41;
4:25), pascha (Matt 26:2, 17-19; et
passim), and sabbaton (Matt 12:1, 2, 5,
10-12, et passim ) . The meanings of these
words, of course, can be found under
their Semitic equivalents, msyh, psh,
and sbt. This also works with Greek loan
words in Tannaitic literature. Smith has
shown that there are many more Greek
loan words in rabbinic literature than
there are Hebrew and Aramaic loan
words in the Not. 81 This provides still
another way by which rabbinic
literature may be used by NT students.
Jewish usage of Greek terms has not
always had exactly the same meaning as
that accepted generally. For example,
in classical Greek usage, the term
hieron referred to an entire temple,
whereas the term naos applied to only
the sanctuary or innermost part of the
temple, but in the LXX and the NT the
term naos frequently refers to the entire
temple, as can be determined by the
contexts themselves.62 To check further
the Jewish meaning of a Greek term
used in the NT, its usage may be traced
in the loan words used in rabbinic
literature. The author of I John said, &dquo;If
anyone sins, we have a parakletos with
the Father, Jesus Christ, the innocent
one&dquo; (I John 2 :1 ) . From Greek sources,
the meaning of parakletos is &dquo;an ad-
vocate&dquo; or &dquo;defense attorney.&dquo; The
Hebrew and Aramaic usage of this term
in rabbinic literature does not con-
tradict this, but instead provides a still
more precise significance from its con-
texts :
&dquo;Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said,
’He who performs one merit acquires
for himself one prqlyt he who per-
forms one transgression obtains for
himself one accusing attorney’ (Pirke
Aboth 4 :11 ) .
Here prqlyt was viewed in terms of
treasury of merits system at the same
time merits and sins were seen in
relationship to a corresponding court
case, with sins and merits as accusing
and defense attorneys. This is very
similar to the view of I John. The
Targum on Job 33:23 employed the
Aramaic prqlyt’ to render the Hebrew
ml’k may’, &dquo;an angelic defense at-
torney.&dquo; This use of rabbinic literature
is not parallelomania. It does not
presume that I John copied from Pirke
Aboth or the Targum on Job, but that the
Jewish use of paraklete as a mediator
between the believer and God is basical-
ly the same as the usage made of the
same term by the author of I John.
There are many Greek loan words in
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
rabbinic literature for which a com-
parison with the same Greek term in the
NT would help to clarify the meaning of
the NT passage. Still more useful is a
familiarity with rabbinic style and
thought-form.
Commentaries on Scripture
Centrality scripture. - The
of
tradition of relating the sacred text to
the worshipping community is very old.
There are many places in the late books
of the OT where the author paraphrased,
satirized, or explained homiletically an
earlier OT text.&dquo;8 About ninety percent
of Philo’s works are commentaries on
the Pentateuch. A good deal of rabbinic
literature consists of 1) running or ex-
egetical commentaries, like Mekilta,
Sifra, Sifre, and Midrash Rabbah; 2)
homiletic commentaries, like Pesikta
Rabbati or Pesikta de Rav Kahana; and
3) narrative midrashim in which words
or passages of scripture were woven into
the narrative.- The more students work
in these midrashim, the more familiar
they become in the whole methodology
by which the ancients used their sacred
texts, the more able they become in
recognizing similar usages in the OT
itself and the NT. Ancient authors were
a so familiar with the OT that they
frequently quoted only a few words of a
passage which were expected to remind
the reader of a whole passage and its
context. This was true of narrative
midrashim, but the method was so wide-
ly practiced that this was done even in
letters and poetry. An author could ex-
press the whole lament over the
destruction of Jerusalem in Ps 102 by
quoting only such words as &dquo;desire her
stones&dquo; or &dquo;pity her dust&dquo; (Ps 102 :15 ) .ea
The NT author could also allude to the
whole Song of Deborah by mentioning
only &dquo;as the sun in its power&dquo; (Rev.
...
1:16 ) . There are about four hundred such
allusions in the Book of Revelation
alone, six of them in only five verses.
Without the expected familiarity with
118
the OT, it is not surprising that the Book
of Revelation has been confusing to
many modern Christians!
Size of pericope. - The ability to
recognize a midrash in the NT puts
limits to a literary unit, and it also
precludes, by its unity, the possibility of
being composite in formulation. The ex-
tent to which the commentary on one
text reaches provides the limit to which
the literature should be considered a uni-
fied text, free from rearrangement and
piecing together various earlier literary
sources. When Gertner discovered a
midrashic relationship between the
priestly benediction (Num 6:24-26) and
the benedictus (Luke 1: 6?-?5 ) , he was
able to argue convincingly for the unity
of the Benedictus.88 When Borgen dis-
covered that John 6:31-58 was a unified
midrash, he provided a persuasive
rebuttal to Bultmann’s theory of dis-
location of several verses within this un-
is.&dquo; Cope’s ability to detect a narrative
midrash on Isa 6:9-10 and Ps 78:34 in
Matt 13 has enabled him to distinguish
the work of one redactor throughout
Matt 13 and separate his composition
from the seven parables which he seems
to have obtained from a source.88 Once
this methodology of a redactor was dis-
covered, Cope was able to trace his
steps throughout the gospel in
relationship to OT texts. This insight is
important for knowledge about the
gospel writer, his use of traditions, and a
reappraisal of the synoptic problem.
Gerhardsson’s analysis of the temp-
tation narrative complements Cope’s
work by showing the midrashic
relationship of the temptation story to
Deut 6-8.°°
Rabbinic reasoning. - The wide belief
among rabbis that all scripture
prophecies only for the days of the
Messiah (Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth,
34b; lQpHab 2:5-6; 7:1-12) shows that
the OT passages quoted in the NT out of
context and with distorted meanings
were not out of order. accordine to the
119
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
standards of NT times. Even if modern
exegetes do not approve of this use of
scripture, a wide reading of the same
type of literature at least helps the
reader understand the viewpoint of the
author and the logic under which he
reasoned. Once a Christian accepted the
premise that all scripture was to be
fulfilled in the days of the Messiah and
held the conviction that Jesus was the
Messiah, it was normal biblical study
for him to deduce from the OT the un-
known things that Jesus must have done
or said. The Matthean gospel writer, for
example, found no difficulty of con-
science in composing a birth narrative
of Jesus on the basis of the passage,
&dquo;The virgin shall become pregnant and
bear a son, and they shall call his name
Immanuel&dquo; (Isa 7 :14 ) . The location of
his birth was based on the prophecy,
&dquo;You Bethlehem, ... are [not] least
among the leaders of Judah, for from
you shall come a leader, who will rule
my people Israel&dquo; (Mic 5 :1, 3). The
family’s trip to Egypt was based on the
prophecy from Hosea, &dquo;Out of Egypt I
have called my son&dquo; (Hos 11:1), and
Herod’s slaughter of the infants fulfilled
the prophecy of &dquo;Rachel weeping for her
children&dquo; (Gen 35:19). In those days, ex-
egesis was not engaged in for the pur-
poses of objective research but to find
proof texts to support a preconceived
dogma. The rules that governed their
literary activity, then, were established
. accordingly.
Exegetes worked with the assumption
that everything that was not in the scrip-
ture was not in the world. When a
certain heretic asked Rabbi Hanina how
old Balaam was when he died, he replied
that it was nowhere explicitly stated.
By this he meant that it was nowhere
written in the scripture, but he said that
there was a hint given: It says, &dquo;Bloody
and deceitful men will not live out half
their days&dquo; ( Ps 55 : 24 ) . Therefore
Balaam must have been about thirty-
three or thirty-four when he died
(Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 106b).
The rabbinic logician took for granted a
familiarity with the passage: &dquo;The days
of our years are seventy years&dquo; (Ps
90:10). His deduction apparently was as
follows: 1) Balaam was a bloody and a
deceitful man. 2) The only source for
knowledge is the scripture which never
said how old Balaam was when he died.
3) His age can be deduced from two
scripture passages. One say s a man
should live to be seventy years of age.
The other says a bloody and deceitful
man will not live out half his normally
destined days. 4) One half of seventy is
thirty-five. 5) Since a man of Balaam’s
character should not achieve even
thirty-five years of age, he probably died
at the age of thirty-three or thirty-four.
The same reasoning was also applied to
Doeg and Al~itophel (Bablonian Talmud,
Sanhedrin 69b). On the basis of similar
logic, both rabbis and authors of the NT
justified their beliefs, recovered un-
known history, and prophesied the
future. To understand their intent, NT
students today must study their logic
and their literature. This involves an
acquaintance with rabbinic literature.
Conclusions
This study has been concentrated on
methodology: First I have supported
Sandmel in calling attention to some un-
satisfactory methods of using rabbinic
literature in relationship to the NT
which has led to faulty conclusions. Next
I have suggested some methods by
which these materials might be used
legitimately and beneficially. The ex-
amples given have not been supported
by enough evidence to demonstrate the
120
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
validity of the insights themselves, but
they have only been summarized with
the intent of illustrating the methods in-
volved. Results are intended to be
suggestive rather than exhaustive.
Times have changed somewhat since
Reimarus attempted to understand the
ministry of Jesus on the basis of rab-
binic literature. On the one hand,
Christians and Jews are a bit more open
and objective in their biblical studies,
but on the other hand, we are not so free
from dogmatic preconditioning that we
have no ulterior motives for studying
rabbinic parallels to the NT.
Nonetheless, it is a sign of progress that
Sandmel criticized those who were
engaged in this study for their lack of
scholarship, not for their lack of
orthodoxy.
Christians and Jews will probably not
give up their subjective biases all at
once, and parallelomania will continue
to some degree, but there are legitimate
ways of using NT and rabbinic literature
to improve our understanding of both.
The few suggestions made are not in-
tended to be definitive or complete.
They are only given to assure NT
scholars that we have not reached an im-
passe. There is a fruitful area of
research here, and there are ways to
avoid parallelomania. It is unlikely that
the appeals to orthodoxy that brought
rabbinic study to a firm halt for NT
students two-hundred years ago will be
able to impede the research of curious
scholars again.
GEORGE WESLEY BUCHANAN
Wesley Theological Seminary

1. H.S. Reimarus, The Coal of Jesus and his Disciples
(Leiden,
1970).
2. J. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et (Leipzig:
Talmudicae
Matthew, 1658; Mark, 1663; I Corinthians, 1664; Luke,
1674; Acts and Romans, post-humously by R. Kidder in
1678).
3. C. Schoettgen, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae in Universum
Novum Teslamentum (2 vols.; Dresden & Leipzig, 1733,
1742).
4. J.J.Wetatein, Novum Testamentum Graecum (2 vols.;
Amsterdam, 1751, 1752).
JW
5. IV-VII passim.
6. J W IV-VII passim.
7. J W IV-VII passim.
8. See Reimarus, Goal, 10-32.
9. J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reich Gottes (Gottingen,
1892.)
10. G. Lindstro’m, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus
(Edinburgh, 1963) and N. Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the
Tearhing of Jesus (Philadelphia, c1963) began their studies
of the secondary sources from the times of Ritschl or
Schleiermacher just as if Reimarus had not existed or said
anything important on the subject.
11. One of the most productive scholars of this period was W.
Bacher: Die Agada der Tannaiten (2 vols.; Strasburg, 1884,
1890); Die Agada der palästinensischen Amoräer (3 vols. ;
Strasburg, 1892-1899); Die Agada der babylonischen Amoräer
(Strasburg, 1878); Die Exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen
Tradilionsliteralur (2 vols. ; Leipzig, 1899, 1905); Tradition
und Tradenten in drn Schulen Palästinas und Babyloniens
(Leipzig, 1914). Other great scholars were L. Zunz, Die
gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (Frankfort a.M., 1892)
and H.L. Strack, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch
(Munich, 1920).
12. P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Newen Testament aus Talmud
und Midrash (5 vols. plus index: München, 1956).
13. Some of these did not even check Billerbeck’s quotations for
context. This has become evident for anyone who checks the
references given by NT scholars. Many times the reference
to some rabbinic source cannot be found there. At such
given
times the reference usually agrees with Billerheck who either
used texts that are not available today or made mistakes in
his documentation. Whatever the case for Billerbeck, later
students have used his work as if it were without flaws or
problems. This is one of the difficulties.
14. S. Sandmel, "Parallelomania," JBL 81 (1962) 1-13.
15. Ibid., 2-3.
16. Ibid., 4, 9.
17. Ibid
., 10.
18. D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (Lon-
don, 1950).
19. For example see pp. 13-16, 410, et passim.
20. B. Gerhardsson. Memory and Manuscript (Lund, c1961) was
justly criticized by M. Smith, "A Comparison of Early
Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition," JBL 82 (1963)
169-76. Gerhardsson’s reply followed: Tradition and Tran-
smission in Early Christianity (Lund, 1964).
21. R.T. Herford, Talmud and Apocrypha (London, c1933), 4.
22. I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels (New
York, c1964), 36-46, 57-60, 81, 87,
et passim.
23. L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees (Philadelphia, 1962).
24. L. Ginsberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1901)
xii.
25. R. T. Herford, The Pharisees (New York, 1924) passim.
26. G.F. Moore, Judaism (3 vols.: Cambridge, 1927, 1930) I, 83.
120-130; II, 281, passim.
et
27. Finkelstein, Pharisees I, 79. Not all of these rabbinic scholars
are Jewish. Modern scholars who still uphold this iden-
tifivation are: Gerhardsson, Memory, passim; Tradition,
passim; and The Testing of God’sSon (Lund, 1966) 41, 74, 79-
80 ; A. Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth
(Leiden, 1964), 2-3, 66; and J. Neusner, From Politics to
et al. For oppos-
Piety (Englewood Cliffs, c1973), 42, 60, 66,
ing views see The Consequences of the Covenant (Leiden, 1970)
259-267; A Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism (Detroit, 1970)
124-128; and M. Smith, "A Comparison," 169-176. E.
Rivkin has made a heroic attempt to define the Pharisees
from Tannaitic literature alone, and, in so doing, has shown
Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009
Footnotes
clearly the difficulty in such an endeavor. He began by
claiming that those pharisees who fought with the Sadducees
were sectarians (Mishnah, 4:6, 7; Tosephta,
Yadaim.
Yadaim. 2:20; Jerusalem Talmud, Yoma, 1:5; Jerusalem
Talmud, Hagigah, 79a). Then he showed places where the
sages were synonymous with the Pharisees (Babylonian
Yoma, His next step
Talmud, Niddah, 33b; Tosephta, 1:3).
was to show the Sadducees in opposition to the sages
(Mishnah, Makkoth, 1:6; Sifre Shoftim 190). He then
presented the Boethusians in conflict with certain rabbis
whom he presumed were Pharisees (Tosephta, Sanhedrin,
6:6) and also with the sages (Tosephta, Rosh ha-Shanah,
1:15). From this he concluded that the Sadducees were the
Boethusians and the sages, the Pharisees. Some anonymous
halakot opposed the Boethusians (Mishnah, Menahoth, 10:3).
Therefore the anonymous halkoth were composed by
Pharisees. When Boethusians opposed the ame haarets ,
however, Rivkin did not conclude that they also were
Pharisees, but that they sided with the Pharisees. He further
claimed that Mishnah, Yadaim, 3:2 identified the sages with
the scribes. Therefore scribes equal the sages equal the
Pharisees. Rivkin’s basic assumption used the laws of
Euclidian geometry: "Objects similar to the same object are
similar to each other," and "objects equal to the same object
are equal to each other." He stretched this to claim, at his
convenience: "objects similar to the same objects are equal to
each other." See Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees," HUCA
40-41 (1969-70) 205-249. J. Bowker,
Jesus and the Pharisees
(Cambridge, 1973) 1, said, "Nothing could be more mis-
leading than to refer to the Pharisees without further
qualifieation as the predecessorsof the rabbis, for the fact
remains that ’Pharisees’ are attacked in rabbinic sources as
vigorously as ’Pharisees’ are attacked in the Gospels."
28. For a portrayal of the Pharisees as agroup of democratic,
non-materialistic merchants who were also super-pious
pacifists, representing everything good in the Israet-Judah
tradition, see Finkelstein, The Pharisees. Herford, The
Pharisees, claimed that the main body of Pharisees remained
attached
firmly to a peace policy, "even down to the last
war" (p. 51).
29. Herford, The Pharisees, 14, dismissed the NT, Josephus, and
the apocalyptic literature as invalid and Christian
scholarship as of no importance. In his opinion, "The only
true source of information as to the Pharisees, the Rabbinic
literature The only real contributions made hitherto to
...
the knowledge of the principles of Pharisaism have been
made by Jewish scholars." In contrast to Acts 26:5,
Finkelstein, The Pharisees I, 10, said the Pharisees were
noted for their "liberalism," "intellectual objectivity," and
"tolerance."
30. (’. Gordon, Adventures in the Nearest East
(Fairlawn, 1957)
134-135, 137-141, considered the Kssenes, proportionately, a
very minor percentage of Judaism before the fall of
Jerusalem, although Josephus said there were two-thirds as
Essenes Pharisees.
many as Finkelstein, The Pharisees.
I, 79,
believed Pharisees later embraced the whole of Judaism.
31. Without noticing the conflict, Finkelstein, The Pharisees. I,
66, also said the Pharisaic hope for the Kingdom of Cod was
"part of everyday thought of the pietists." "Rome might
conquer; it could only be for the moment. Ultimately the
Lord would prove Himself unique in strength." How did
I, these war-hating Pharisees expect to overthrow Rome
peacefully? The problem Romans had with the Pharisees,
said Finkelstein,
The Pharisees, I, xiv, was that the Pharisees
"openly preached equality of mankind and futility and
wickedness of war"[italips mine]. How could an elect group
within an elect people consider equality of all mankind?
32. To the extent that there is a rabbinic point of view. In any
event, a small percentage of specially chosen texts is not
representative.
33. Probably because (’hristianswere mostly interested in the
NT, and Jews were interestedin showing that their literature
had not received any Christian influence, little effort has
been made to note the extent that Christian literature has in-
fluenced Jewish literature.
34. Daube, Rabbinic Judaism, 10, 13, 16, 246, 266, et al.
35. Gerhardsson,
Memory, 238-239, referred to a tradition
(Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth 28b) attributed to "Nehonia
121
 ben Haqqanah (a contemporary of the Apostles)." He com- much of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan contains pre-Christian
mented, however, "There is however nothing to prevent it tradition, this cannot be presumed. Itmust be demonstrated
being older." as M has done it at many points.
36. Sifre onNumbers, Huqqat §123, 5-7 (41b-42a) attributed the 49. At the conelusion to the introdurtion to Sifra. See also D. de
same saying both to Hillel and to Yohanan ben Zakkai. Me- Sola Pool, The Traditional Prayer Book (New York. c1960),
Numara, The Palestinian Targum, 27, said, "As has been 128-130.
already noted the connection of any particular type of ex- 50. Cf. Gen 44:8; Mt 6:8-30; 7:9-11; 12:11-12; Rom 5:4-9, 10, 17,
egesis with a particular rabbi in rabbinie tradition may be 18, 21; 11:12, 15, 24; Hab 2:2-4; 9:13-14; 10:28-29.
merely due to an accident in the process of transmission. At 51. 97; Abodah Zarah, 9a;
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin,
some uncertain period it became a norm in rabbinism that, Pesikta Rabbati 40 (172a) Behodesh Hashebi i; Midrash on
wherever possible, traditionists were to name their source Ps 90:17; Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth, II (17a).
and not hand on a tradition anonymously." E. Rivkin, The 52. See further Consequences of the Covenant,
9-18.
Shaping of Jewish History (New York, c1971) 100, said of the 53. A Concordance to the NT
W.F. Moulton and A.S. Geden,
: "They elevated their predecessors to an honored
Amoraim (Edinburgh, 1953).
pedestal high above themselves, and then, in their name and 54. E. Hateh and H.A. Redpath, A Concondance to the Septuragint
in their spirit, built new structures, developed new concepts, (2 vols.; Graz-Austria, 1954).
launched new institutions, and thought hitherto unthinkable 55. C.J. Kasovsky, Thesaurus Mishnae (4 vols.; Jerusalem,
thoughts." See also MeNamara, The Palestinian Targum, 19; 1956).
, 47a; Shabbath 15a; Bikkurim
Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth , 56. C.J. Kasowsky, Thesaurus Thosephthae (6 vols.; Jerusalem,
5a; Mishnah, Eduyoth, 1:3; and H.L. Straek, Introduction to 1932-61).
the Talmud and Midrash (New York, c1959) 17. 57. B. Kasovsky, Otzar Leshon Hatannai ’im (12 vols.;
37. A. Guttmann, Das redaktionelle und sachliche Verhällnis Jerusalem, 1965-72).
zwischen Misna und Tosephta (Breslau, 1928). 58. C.J Kasowski, Thesaurus Talmudis (31 vols. ; Jerusalem,
38. Scripture
G. Vermes, and Tradition in Judaism (Leiden, el- 1954-73). Completed to pē. Still in process.
961). 59. K.H. Rengstorf, "apostello," Theologisches Wörterbuch zum
39. Finkel, The Pharisees. Neuen Testament (ed. G. Kittel; Stuttgart, 1933) I, 397-448.
40. MeNamara, The Raleslinan Targum.... See also J.D.M. Derrett, Law in the NT (London, c1970), 52-
41. J. Neusner, Development of a Legend
(Leiden, 1970) and 55.
Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (2 vols.: Leiden, 1973) 11,3-15. 60. Song of Songs Rabbah 2:13, 2-3; Pesikta Rabati 15 (75a).
42. R. Bloeh, "Note Methodoligique pour L’Etude de la 61. M. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels to the NT (Philadelphia, 1951)
Literature Rabbinique," RSR 43 (1955) 212-227. 10.
43. Bloch considered her earliest form to be Targum Pseudo- 62. E.g. Mk 14:58.
Jonathan Ex 1:15. There were clear midrashic relationships 63. "Midrashim Pre-Tannaites," RB 72 (1965) 229-39; To the
between this text and other claborated accounts, but the Hebrews (Garden City, 1972) XIX; S. Sandmel, "The
tradition preserved in Ant.II. 9,2 did not show the same Haggada Within Scripture," JBL -? (1961) 105-122. See
midrashie relationship. This means that the tradition is at also the midrash on Ex 15 in Ps 74.
least as old as Josephus, but it does not prove that the 64. See A.G. Wright, "The Literary Genre Midrash," CBQ 28
targum text is still earlier and a source for Josephus. (1966) 124. Wright’s definition of midrash is too sharp to be
44. MeNamara, Palestinian Targum, 70-149. (’f Rom 10:6-8 and workable, but his basic research is helpful. See also: R.
Neofiti Deut 30:12; Heb 11:4 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan LeDeaut, "Apropos a definition of Midrash" Interpretation
and Neofiti Gen 4:8: 25 (1971) 259-282.
45. II Tim 3:8-9 and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Ex 7:11-12; Rev 65. Judah Halevy, "Longing for Zion."
2:11; 20:6 and Targum Jer 51:39, 57; Isa 65:6,
et al . 66. B. Gertner, "Midrashim in the NT," JSS 7 (1962) 273-282.
46. Taken from P.E. Kahle,
The Cairo Geniza (Oxford, 1959), 67. P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven (Leiden, 1965), 33-43.
202-203. 68. O.L. Cope, Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of God
47. Ibid., 203. (Ann Arbor, c1971) 24-56.
48. Although MeNamura, Palestinian Targum. has shown that 69. Gerhardsson, Testing.

122

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by Dolly Chaaya on March 9, 2009