Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

A fresh approach to Jewish-Christian studies
Asher Finkel

 

Since the Second Vatican Council II three decades ago, and the publication of Guidelines and Suggestions for the Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, ten years later, a fresh attitude towards Judaism prevails in the study of the common roots with Christianity and the subsequent relational development of the respective religious communities.

The teaching of contempt and the approach of the theological confrontation that guided studies in the past were arrested. Judaism is to be viewed in its own terms, as authentically expressed by its own sources in light of its own religious dynamics. Current studies must remove tendentious presentations, theological categorizations, religious typifications and exegetical accounts from their explorations.

At the same time, contemporary scholarship benefits from the new discoveries, the great variety of ancient sources, more critical and comprehensive translations or synoptic presentations, as well as from improved methodologies, refined scholarly tools and the results of phenomenological analysis. What comes to determine, however, this new quest of Jewish-Christian studies is bound by how the scholar perceives the historical development, as it is captured by the Biblical view of time that affects the two related yet distinct traditions.

The need is, then, to recognize three distinct periods affecting the relationship of Biblically oriented traditions. Each period is governed by its particular dynamics in view of the religious awareness as expressed in praxis and in thought. The past tendency to read into the earlier period the later view and even to explain it by the later practice produced retrojectional scholarship.

Moreover, contemporary studies may be colored by the scientific, philosophical or theological aspects of the sociology of knowledge. The analytical refinement of what is the true background of the development is the condition for an authentic engagement with the total picture in each distinct period.

To read the textual evidence of the past only in a descriptive and comparative way offers a distorted account. For this does not allow for the religious dynamics of practice, thought and experience to determine the deeper meaning and the intent of the writer(s). One must advance from surface reading to reading in depth, when critical and exegetical study is made.

Texts should not be read in isolation nor is the meaning to be determined from a literary form and its hypothetical Sitz im Leben. One should recognize the common ground that affects various texts of the same time, especially of related schools or strands within the movement. The religious phenomenon must be examined, while not ignoring the religious person(s) who wrote or edited the text, for his work employs a language of special meaning for the community to whom it is written affectively and performatively. In particular, one must recognize that Holy Scriptures are stamped by a canonical consciousness that governs the religious life of the people. Such works evolve over a period of time as "set-apart" literature, and as holy books they become the guiding force in the consequent history of interpretation of the Biblically oriented communities.

In Judaism, the first period gave rise to the canonical foundation of the Hebrew Bible. Its religious view affects the later two periods. The second period gave rise to the Pharisaic-Rabbinic view of the dual canon, the written and oral Tradition (TaNaKh and Mishnah). In Christianity, its roots lie in the first period but its canonical foundation rests at the end of the second period. The third period gave rise to the normative canon of Old and New Testaments of early Christianity and to the development of its Patristic literature. In Judaism, however, the third period gave rise to two Talmudic traditions on the canonical Mishnah for Jewry under two foreign rules of Christian Rome and Zoroastrian Parthia.

THE NOTION OF TIME
Biblical historiography is determined by a Sabbatico-millennial calculation. For one day of the Lord is but a thousand years (cf. Ps. 90:4) of human history and the Biblical view comes to define how God acts in human time. Accordingly, the quantitative aspect of time as chronos is based on human measurement of a fixed point on time by correlative dating.
This approach cannot serve the Biblical scholar in the determination of the temporal signification of the narrative. For Biblical time represents kairos, the opportunity for humanity to enjoy decisive events, while holding the promise of things to come. There is an organic linkage between generations as they evolve in God's time (the millennium), when past and future are bridged by His immanence. This qualitative aspect of time is captured in units of seven, forming the Sabbatico-millennial calculation.

The divine perspective of time captured in the Biblical narrative explains why contemporary scholarship faces contradictions in the Scriptures when fixed dating is applied. The following examples will suffice.

In the Jewish Bible, the problem of contradictory statements on the period of bondage in the vision of the "Covenant of Pieces" (Gen 15:13-"400 years" and 15:16 "fourth generation") suggest two experiences of exodus. In reality, "400 years" signify the period from Isaac's birth, and "fourth generation" from Levi, the son of Jacob who entered Egypt, until the days of Moses, his grandson.

In the Christian Bible, the birth of Jesus relates to the death of Herod, according to Matt 2, and it is connected with the census of Quirinius, seven years later, in Lk 2:2. Yet both relate to the same unit of Sabbatical time since the coming of the Messiah bespeaks the "favorable year of the Lord," and the year of the census is the Sabbatical year at the end of seven years.

The Biblical narrative relates the history from God's perspective of time, through promise and fulfilment, while reserving the cyclical fixed time for human celebration of critical events. The pivotal events become days of "remembrance," time to be "set-apart," which allows the person to enter into the divine frame of time. It is the period of release from secular time, in order to be open to God's presence in history.

Thus, the ecclesiastical determination of the calendar becomes the key for understanding the differences between the Biblically oriented communities. Jews and Christians adopt the anamnesis experience for celebrating a "sacred" period but with reference to two distinct pivotal events of Paschal time. Moreover, the apocalyptic notion of eschatological time, that is bound by Sabbatico-millennial calculation, is shared by the two communities, with the prospect of messianic advent. However, they differ in how this coming is to be realized by God's intent through the designated saviour figure.

THE FIRST PERIOD
The Biblical account of the first period covers the years between Abraham and Solomon, from the time God's presence was first acknowledged by an individual to the time when God's presence descended into the Temple of Jerusalem as He is enthroned by many. This historical development is captured in the Biblical account of God's promise and fulfilment within a period of a thousand years. From Abraham's birth to the "Covenant of Pieces" is a span of 70 years and from that first vision to Abraham until the Exodus there are 430 years (Exod 12:41). The Temple of Solomon was built 480 years after the Exodus (1 King 6:6), all totalling two grand Jubilees. These represent two cycles of seventy Sabbaticals that add up to a millennium minus twenty. For the redemptive history is grounded in the Biblical revolutionary teaching of the year of release (Lev. 25:1-24, Deut 15:1-8).

Such a view sheds light on the prophetic proclamation of a "favorable year of the Lord" (Isa 61:2), which Jesus teaches as a fulfilment of God's Kingdom (Lk 4:21). In the past I have presented this phenomenological understanding of Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom; it reflects the canonical consciousness of the Jewish people in the Synagogue.

In the early Christian tradition found in Luke 4, the initial announcement of God's kingship occurs one thousand years after God is enthroned in the Solomonic Temple. For all messianic prospects eventually were bound by the sabbatical tradition, that spoke of proclaiming God's kingdom on earth through release from mammon, human bondage and land control.

Both Judaism and Christianity are rooted in the theocentric understanding of human history as reflected in the first period. They both focus on "God's presence," as He affects human life. The notion and experience of the holy governs this tradition, as it is bound by the categories of purity and the spirit in contradistinction to the polluted and the profane. The phenomenological analysis of liminal experience of the Sabbath-Sabbatical, pilgrimage and rites of passage should guide the theological discussion. Temple as sacred place enjoys both physical and spiritual dimensions as it is related to celebration and worship in sacred time. Temple as the heavenly prototype (tavnit) and its micro-macrocosmic significance should be examined as it affects the theosophical tradition with its depiction of the angelic service. To those questions I shall turn in my next study ("Temple and Oracle," to be published in the near future).

The first period provides also a prefiguration of a redemptive process. It opens with the birth of Isaac, the beloved son of the promise, who is brought as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. This supreme act of love for God produces atonement for his descendants, who enjoy the prospect of release from bondage. The divine promise to Abraham is eventually fulfilled, but its aim and purpose is to lead the people to Mount Moriah, to the Temple of God. This goal is expressed in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:17), which event culminates in the proclamation of God's kingship.
Such foundational understanding in the formative canon of the Hebrew Bible has a deep impact on the Christian Scriptures as they relate the meaning of Jesus' coming to usher in God's Kingdom on earth. As for Judaism, this first period holds the eschatological prospect in their redemptive history, as "endtime" will be realized as in the days of the "son of David." Thus, a clear distinction will mark the two canons of the Synagogue and the Church, in their final formation.

THE CANON
The Hebrew tripartite canon of TaNaKh concludes with Cyrus' invitation to Jewry in exile to "go up" to Jerusalem in order to rebuild the "House of the Lord" (2 Chr 36:22-23). For Jewish canonical consciousness places Jerusalem and its Temple in the center of their redemptive history and their future hope. When the Temple is destroyed, the hope to return motivates their scribes and teachers to preserve the entire Temple tradition of its architecture, priesthood, sacrificial service and the Levitical laws of purities.

It did not only become part of the canon to be studied but also affectively to be "remembered" through prayer, rituals and celebration in sacred time. The synagogue becomes the "Temple in miniature" and its prayer service corresponds to the daily sacrifices. Such a development actually takes place during this period, that saw two Temples in Jerusalem being destroyed, while the synagogue remained the only viable place for worship.

In the Christian experience, the Temple represents Jesus, in whom God's presence dwells. Jesus becomes the ideal sacrifice and he affects the order of priesthood. His eucharistic words and actions are "remembered" and all prayers and sacraments are directed through him. The hours and the week of crucifixion determine the cycle of sacred time in the Christian calendar.

Thus, the Christian canon concluded with the last chapter of Revelation that speaks of the final prospect for God's creation, the descent of the heavenly Temple as Jesus the Lamb on Earth. This final advent corresponds to the first coming of the historical Jesus. The "endtime" realizes the return of the "son of David." For his ministry, too, unfolds on the road to the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple becomes the focus for his teaching and actions. The sacrificial tradition of redemptive celebration and God's atonement governs the symbolic meaning of his sayings in John's Gospel of semeia. The disciples follow him on the road in a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Paschal meal becomes the setting of his last Supper. Such a development occurs at the end of this second period.

In the Christian apocalyptic view, the two millennia of Torah end in the birth of Jesus, with whom the messianic age is ushered in; his suffering and death for humanity determine its course, and the crucifixion is a prelude to the destruction. Thus, the Christian dual canon represents a New Testament as the extension of the Old. In contrast, Jewish dual canon represents the TaNaKh, as the written tradition, followed by the Mishnah of R. Yehudah the Patriarch as the oral tradition. Both communities enjoy a dual canon that began in the first period but ended differently towards the end of the second period, with a distinct view of the canonical linkage.

THE LINKAGE OF DUAL CANON
The link between the Tanakh and the Mishnah is found in the canonical ending of Ecclesiastes 12:9-14. It refers to "dibhre hakhamim," the teachings of the sages, who designate the Pharisees and Tannaim, as those accompany the (twenty-four) "driven nails of the canonical collections (ba'ale 'asuphoth)." Those two bodies of "set-apart" writings represent in the rabbinic view, the "dibhre Torah" of the written tradition and the "dibhre hakhamim" of the oral tradition. They are said "to be given by one shepherd." This shepherd is identified in the opening historiographical account of Mishnah Avot, as "Moses who received the Torah from Sinai."

The linkage between the Old and the New Testament occurs in the canonical ending of the Prophets (Mal 3:22-24). For the "Torah and the Prophets" were already closed canonically, and the Gospels entered the third division of the Scriptures for the Jewish-Christian community. This canonical ending speaks of the Torah that was given to Moses at Horeb, as the past reality, and of the coming of Elijah, as the future prospect. Therefore, the first published Gospel of Mark in the Church opens with a reference to Malachi's promise (3:1) of "the messenger" who will come to clear the way before the arrival of the Lord (Aramaic: Rabbouna) in the Temple.

In light of this prospect, the fulfilment is related with the appearance of John the Baptist, who is identified as Elijah redivivus. He comes to clear the way for Jesus, who is called the Lord (Aramaic: Rabbouni; Greek: Kyrios). Such a canonical linkage determines the early Christian view of the relationship to the Hebrew canon, as promises to be fulfilled when it was presented originally in their preaching at the synagogue on the Sabbath. Papias, born at the end of the first century, recalls that Mark was the Meturgemman (interpreter) of Peter when he preached. Mark held a significant role at the synagogal service on the Sabbath at the time of reading the Hebrew canonical text, and with this background he wrote the Gospel.

VARIEGATED JUDAISM
This canonical consciousness guided the early Church because it was dominated by Jewish followers of Jesus the Jew. For this movement emerged within the variegated forms of Judaism before the destruction of the Second Temple. Judaism of the second half of the millennium was shaped by the post-exile development that saw the rise of the worshipping community in Judea. Under Ezra and Nehemiah, the representative of the Jewish state accepted the Torah as the constitution through a covenantal commitment, thus adopting a theocratic system of government.

The high priest Simon the Righteous captures the nature of this system in the saying of Mishnah Avot (1:3):"Upon three things the world stands; upon the Torah, the Service and the acts of loving kindness." Canonical Torah guides the socio-political system, and the Temple (with its sacrificial service accompanied by prayers) is central to its religious life. The acts of loving kindness represent its ethical ideal in human relations.

Under the Hasmoneans, such a system was established to govern the life of the people. The emergent theocratic state, with a priestly administration and scribes of the Torah, gave rise to varied expressions of Jewish practice and thought as determined by the proper interpretation of the "Torah and Prophets." Various interpretations were applied, either in the oracular and pesheric mode or in the exegetical and the midrashic mode. I devoted my attention to these hermeneutical dynamics for they come to explain phenomenologically the differences between the Qumran texts and the early rabbinic teachings of the Pharisaic schools.

Differences between the Zaddokite priests as religious heads, administrators and teachers gave rise to the Sadducean tradition of the ruling families in Jerusalem and the Essene tradition of the pietistic Zaddokites who had escaped to the Desert. The latter tradition is preserved in Qumran writings. Their antagonists were the Pharisees, who gave rise to two schools during the first century. This I demonstrated in my original work on the Pharisees, that the zealotic school of Shammai dominated in their exegetical and halakhic debates with the liberal school of Hillel. This is the evidence of early Tannaitic literature, that should guide the scholar in the proper evaluation of the Pharisaic relationship to Jesus and the early Church, as well as their relationship to the Zaddokite groups. Jesus' criticism of Pharisaic teachings clearly addresses the Shammaites and in no way can it be judged by reference to post-Destruction Judaism that is rooted in the Hillelitic tradition. For the shift occurred after R. Yochanan ben Zakkai established the Yavneh academy; the Hillelites gained the majority and the halakhah was determined by their teachings.

Moreover, the Yavneh school transmitted the Pharisaic tradition of the past and served as a critical link between the pre-Destruction and post-Destruction Judaism to guarantee its continuity. There was no revolution nor severance from the past produced by Yavneh.

This is my position, which was verified recently by the publication of the Qumran fragments known as 4QMMT and it also gained support, as I showed in the past, from the Markan account of the pre-Destruction Pharisaic teaching on the great commandments (Mk 12:32,33). The teaching of loving kindness by R. Yochanan is not a revolutionary idea but the adaptation of Simon the Righteous' principle to a post-Destruction situation.

Furthermore, the Torah itself becomes a dual canon in the post-Destruction Judaism, as maintained by the pre-Destruction Pharisees. The Temple service is replaced by the "service of the heart" in the life of the synagogue but the "memory of the Temple" is kept alive. The "three things" of Simon recorded in Mishnah Avot continue to guide the Mishnaic community but with particular understanding as explained in Avot de R. Nathan.

The form critical approach to the Mishnah, as rooted in the apocopated and atomistic study of its lemmas, cannot serve the scholar well in this exploration. The Mishnah preserves different layers of tradition, the earliest stratum belongs to the period before the Destruction. Variegated Judaism of pre-Destruction time should be evaluated by the Mishnaic sources as well as Qumran material, in light of Josephus' testimony and the evidence of intertestamental works.

Jesus and early Jewish-Christianity were aware of the various groups and the schools. Their relationship to the varied expressions, as well as the given mode of interpretation, deserves serious attention.

For the New Testament writings are not only to be judged by the targeted communities to which they relate, but moreover are to be judged by the complex background of canonical consciousness from which they sprang. Such a course of study I have undertaken, and it does produce fresh insight into critical issues of the present research as it sheds light on forgotten vehicles of meaning from the past.

The critical question of Jewish involvement with Jesus' death cannot be determined by the collation of consensus of scholarly opinion. It demands serious reevaluation of each particular item and of each accusation, as related to particular action or given words in the event during that time. Retrojectional analysis cannot serve to unlock the true meaning of the narratives.

A good example to illustrate the point is how contemporary scholarship views the act of administering vinegar to Jesus on the cross, as a malevolent act. In reality, it was the benevolent act of lovingkindness that prompted the Jewish action. For the daughters of Jerusalem would administer vinegar to the crucified man to alleviate his dreadful suffering. These "daughters of Jerusalem" also wept for the one who was led to the cross (see Lk 23:27).

To understand such behavior one should enter Jewish life of pre-Destruction Judaism. Furthermore, the Hillelite position of rabbinic Judaism of post- Destruction would not have allowed the priestly action to deliver one person for the sake of the nation (Jn 11:50), nor allow for a court hearing to take place on Passover night. Apparently, a different expression of Judaism was involved, and if so, how and why?

In a similar vein, the Hillelitic Mishnah rejected key teachings of the Pharisees of pre-Destruction period, whom Jesus criticized. For they were the Shammaites, whose action also brought about the very destruction of the Temple. Not only did the School of Shammai dwindle after the Destruction but also the Essene priests disappeared, while the priestly establishment was now replaced by the academic establishment at Yavneh.


THE THIRD PERIOD
Only during the last century of the Second Period, according to the rabbinic historiography, did Judaism begin to enjoy the process of consolidation under patriarchal authority that gave rise to a monolithic structure of Mishnaic Judaism. It enjoyed continuity with its past and during the Yavnean period it sought to restore the Temple of Jerusalem. For the third period really opens with the Hadrianic war against Bar Kochba, a century from the death of Jesus. Simeon Bar Koseba, whose letters were recently discovered near the Dead Sea, was named the "Son of the Star" (see Num 17:24) by R. Akiva, the great Tanna, towards the end of the Yavnean period. Bar Koseba was designated as the Messiah of Israel, whom Jewish-Christians refused to acknowledge. They fled to Pella, as they did prior to the Destruction but for a different reason. Now the rejection of the national Jewish messiah became an issue of commitment. It produced the first recorded persecution of the "Galileans," a sobriquet for Jewish-Christians (compare Mk 14:70 with Bar Kochba Letter.) As I showed elsewhere, Judaism at Yavneh was not deeply concerned with Jewish-Christianity as a threat, to affect its decisions and the prayer form of malediction. They were mainly concerned with Jewish heresy of various expressions including gnosis or with the external threat of pagan Rome. Now in the context of the Hadrianic war, the issue of the messiah became a crucial matter of faith.

The failure of Bar Kochba, who was killed by the Romans, caused a terrible massacre of Jewry in Judea and the physical removal of Jerusalem from Jewish access under penalty of death. Such a decree by Hadrian put an end to Jewish-Christianity in Jerusalem (as recorded by Eusebius) but also gave rise to the establishment of Jewry in Galilee under the patriarchate of R. Simeon ben Gamliel II and his son R. Yehuda, who edited the Mishnah. This pivotal change was described in early Rabbinic writings as being caused by Hadrian's religious persecution. He openly issued legislation against Judaism to arrest its continuity. In response, in order to guarantee survival, Galilean Jewry adopted three oath-restrictions on their historical development that seeks a return to Zion. They shall not wage war again, nor will they press for restoration of the Temple as a messianic act but accept a life under foreign rule, unless it interferes with the principal teachings of the Torah (denial of God, putting another person to death and committing adultery).

The Mishnaic tradition now was collected officially and adjusted to the new reality. This is exhibited clearly in the orders of the Mishnah, that relegated the primary laws of "Sanctities" and "Purities" to the last divisions. It even seals their tractate with prayer for divine intervention to rebuild the Temple (Tamid 7:3). The focus of study in the Amoraic schools remained on the relevant orders for Galilean and Babylonian Jewries. The latter did not deal with the laws of "seeds" of the first order, since it only pertained to the life of the Galilean Jews in the land of Israel. Thus, both Jewries exhibited the need to cope with their religious life of a persecuted religion among the gentiles of Parthian and Roman rule.

JUDAISM AMONG THE NATIONS
Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel II reflects this change in his key teaching of Mishnah Avot 1:18. "Upon three things the world is maintained: upon the law, the truth and peace." Note that he states "the world is maintained" and not as Simeon of the Second Period who formulates "the world stands." To maintain the Jewish system of self rule is a matter of survival. Indeed, it is founded on the acceptance of the "law of the land" in relation to Torah. However, their law should not compromise the Jewish view of the truth in the relationship to God, "Whose seal is truth." Specifically for Judaism truth defines pure monotheism. A Jew will sacrifice his life for such a commitment and many acts of martyrdom occur throughout their exilic experience. However, Judaism does not question the faith expression of the Christian gentiles. For they are biblically oriented people, who rejected idolatry of the past as nature worship. Their experiential commitment to God, in a trinitarian and incarnational tradition, is not classified by Jewry, that knew Christian practice and thought, as idolatry. This is not a matter of debate nor should it become the concern of "the Dialogue". For both expressions of transpersonal commitment remain verities for each respective community, while both enjoy a common anchorage in the Biblical orientation. Thus the last principle of the "pursuit of peace" is directed toward the future. For its applications in the relationship between people is a key to Mishnaic halakhah, that speaks of darke shalom ("the ways of peace," see Mishnah Gittin 5:8-9). By way of these three principles Mishnaic tradition can achieve the final goal of the Torah, the establishment of peace on earth.

During the post-Hadrianic time, Jewish Christianity was now replaced by the gentile Church. Eventually it became the religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine. Not only is Jewish-Christianity classified as heresy by the Church Fathers, but all judaizing tendencies were arrested. From the days of Justin (second century) the Church was seeking to define its distinct religious character as a separate licit religion. It also ushered in a long period of debates with the gentile Church on the significant recent events of the pseudomessianism of Bar Kochba and the counter claim of Jesus as the messiah.

For the death of Bar Kochba generated a rabbinic protest against faith in a dead messiah. A new conception of a dual messiah surfaces, that spoke of the national warrior type and his successor, the spiritual righteous one. The rabbis describe a theological account of God's withdrawal/presence through periods of descent and periods of withdrawal. The rabbis preached and developed the notion of Shekinah in exile, and Israel is perceived as his "suffering servant" whose light is directed to all nations. The return to Zion can only be dictated by world powers, as in the days of Cyrus, apart from individuals' quest for return as mourners to Jerusalem in ruins.

Those events in our days that realized the ingathering of exiles in the land of Israel, with Jerusalem as its capital, bespeaks partial fulfilment of their redemptive hope. For its independence was achieved through world support and after the defeat of those nations who sought their elimination, especially after the terrible catastrophe of the Holocaust in Christian countries. Such a rabbinic view of post-Auschwitz theology should be acknowledged as one of the serious expressions of contemporary Judaism as it faces Protestant and Catholic Christianity in dialogue.
During the third period, the Church adopts the Roman anti-Jewish legislation and accepts total separation from Jewish practice and influence. This development ushers in a long period of anguish for the Jews. They faced persecution, polemic and disputation, that led at times to violent and aggressive behavior towards the Jews in Christian countries. Rabbinic Judaism viewed this relationship as a struggle between Jacob and Esau. Although they emerged as twins, i.e. parallel expressions of a common Biblical orientation, Israel feels the wrath of Esau in its socio-political history. The memory of Jesus the Jew fades and he merges with the later conception of him in the gentile Church.

THE USE OF RABBINIC LITERATURE
The historical Jesus, therefore, is confused with a later offender who was called Yeshu. He was put to death by a rabbinic court at Lydda for his practice of magic. Furthermore, the gnostic view of Jewish-Christianity also colors the later Jewish account.

The official Christian account of Jesus born after the death of Herod is also put into question by referring to another Jesus, who lived during the reign of the Hasmonean Jannaeus, as a deviant disciple of early Pharisaism. Apparently various figures seem to coalesce with the historical Jesus, and the rabbinic response depends on their later understanding of the various images of Jesus.

A most significant concern in the scholarly use of rabbinic works should not be the question of dating but rather how these works were preserved in Christian countries. For such rabbinic writings exhibit not only the internal censorship by the rabbis but mainly they were subject to serious external censorship, while most of their valuable manuscripts were put to fire or confiscated by the Church. Therefore, the reliability of the actual reading of the rabbinic works from Christian countries can be seriously questioned as a true witness to the early period. For all allusions or references to Jesus, Christianity and even Rome were eliminated or misrepresented.

The scholars need to examine manuscripts that are now becoming available by Jewry of Islamic countries, such as Yemen, Persia, Iraq and Libya. A careful study of the Geniza witness can assist the scholar in the proper evaluation. Thus, it is erroneous to state, as Joachim Jeremias declared by the "criterion of dissimilarity" that such an expression or idiom did not exist in first century Judaism. For his knowledge was limited to the research done by his graduate students in their use of only the Ashkenazi witness of rabbinic works. To this question I devoted my critical studies of the proper use of rabbinic material on Jesus and Christianity.

This personal account of the scholarly pursuit of Jewish Christian studies shows how cautious we must be in the examination of each period. Such is the invitation extended to all scholars who seek to enter the new millennium in a joint effort to explore the dynamics of a common background.

Steps must be taken to ensure future generation of scholars be free of prejudgment and misunderstanding. Let these studies probe the phenomenological aspect of the tradition in order to relate the authentic meaning of practice and concept, as they are captured in particular words. Some of these significant practices or ideas may have been dismissed, omitted or forgotten over the centuries. The need remains to open a new chapter in the scholarly Dialogue, as one faces the other in honesty and in mutual respect, while seeking to uncover the real dynamics of their common heritage.


Selected Bibliography of the Author

1. The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth, Leiden: Brill Verlag, revised 1974. It explores the different schools of Pharisees and their Tannaitic controversies, the criticism of Jesus towards the Pharisees and the Midrashic background of Jesus' teachings. The original study appeared already in 1964.

2. "The Pesher of Dream and Scriptures," Revue de Qumran 15 (1963). It explores the phenomenological meaning of "pesher" as it determines projectional interpretation at Qumran, in relation of Rabbinic midrash of patar and Jesus' use of pesher.

3. "The Passover Story and the Last Supper," in Root and Branch ed. M. Zeik and M. Siegel, (Williston Park, NY:Roth Publishing, 1973)). The phenomenological background to the Last Supper is presented.

4. "Midrash and the Synoptic Gospel," Society of Biblical Literature: Seminar Papers, 1977.

5. "Scriptural Interpretation: A Historical Perspective," in Evangelicals and Jews in Conversation, ed. M. Tanenbaum, M. Wilson and J. Rudin (Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1978).

6. "Comparative Exegesis: A Study of Hallel and Kerygma," Journal of Dharma, 5 (1980).

7. "Yavneh Liturgy and Early Christianity," Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18 (1981). First presented at a NCCJ conference in Villanova, Pa. May 17, 1977. It calls into question Davies' view that Matthew's setting is connected with Yavneh's Judaism, that responded to the threat of Jewish-Christianity. It studies the category of who is a "Jew" and who is a "min" in relation to the malediction on minim and the witness of Patristic literature. It concludes with a study of early recollection of Jesus' teaching in Tannaitic literature.

8. "Jewish Liturgy of Marriage," SIDIC (vol. 14, #1, 1981) reprinted in The Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy, ed. Eugene J. Fisher (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1990).

9. "The Theme of God's Presence and the Qumran Temple Scroll," in God and His Temple, ed. Lawrence Frizzell (South Orange: Institute of Judaeo-Christian Studies, 1981).

10. "The Prayer of Jesus in Matthew," in Standing Before God, ed. A. Finkel and Lawrence Frizzell (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1981).
A phenomenological examination of Jesus' prayer in the context of Jewish prayer, as a tefillah qesarah (brief form of the 18 Benedictions. Its unique place in Matthew and how it affects the structure of the Gospel. The contradistinction with the Lukan version, in view of the ecclesiastical form vs the apostolic form. The proper understanding of "Abba" and the petitions, as well as the original form in Aramaic for its liturgical use.

11. "Jesus' Preaching in the Synagogue on the Sabbath (Lk 4:16-28)", in SIDIC 17 (#3, 1984) and recently in revised form included in the publication of The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel ed. Craig A. Evans and W. Richard Stegner (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).

12. "Jerusalem in Biblical and Theological tradition," in Evangelicals and Jews in an Age of Pluralism ed. Marc Tanenbaum, M. Wilson and Rudin (Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1984). The phenomenological meaning of Jerusalem in light of pilgrimage.

13. "Sabbath as the Way of Shalom in the Biblical Tradition," Journal of Dharma 11 (1986). The phenomenological meaning of the Sabbath is presented.

14. "The Suffering Servant Hymn and His Sequel: A New Translation," SIDIC 19 (#1, 1986). It offers a new study of the Hymn plus the neglected sequel, Isa. 56:9-57:3 with a new translation and commentary.

15. "The Departure of the Essenes, Christians and R. Yohanan from Jerusalem," in Wie gut sind Deine Zelte Jaakow, Festschrift R. Mayer, Bleicher Verlag, 1986. A comparative phenonemological examination in view of God's withdrawal affecting the Teacher's life.

16. "The Other and the Stranger in Biblical and Rabbinic Tradition," SIDIC 25 (#3, 1992).

17. "The Exegetic Elements of the Cosmosophical Work, Sepher Yesirah," in Mystics of the Book ed. R.A. Herrera (New York: Peter Lang, 1993). The cosmosophical work of "Book of Formation" as it is anchored in similar exegetical elements of the early Apocalypse of Abraham and its phenomenological meaning for proto-mysticism.

18. "Biblical, Rabbinic and Early Christian Ethics," in "Jewish-Christian Encounters over the Centuries" ed. M. Perry and Frederick M. Schweitzer (New York: Peter Lang, 1994). A comparative study of early Christian and Rabbinic ethics as rooted in the Bible.

---

Rabbi Professor Asher Finkel teaches in the Department of Jewish-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University, New Jersey.