Extra Biblical Jewish Tradition

 From a seminar at Bethel Seminary on Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament

In light of Matthew’s knowledge of extra-biblical Jewish tradition (as reflected in post-NT texts such as the Targum and the Mishnah), how familiar do you think New Testament readers should be with Jewish (i.e., non-Christian) literature? That is, beyond the Old Testament, do you think New Testament readers should be spending time reading Jewish literature? Why or why not?

Context is the critical factor in responding to this important question, namely, what are one’s motivations in reading the NT and how does such knowledge factor in.

I can imagine for more than a few faith-seeking/faith embracing adults whose primary motivation is spiritual edification, drawing broad connections between NT and OT passages facilitated by well written study Bible may be sufficient.  With a singular focus on attaining an ever deeper walk with the Lord, there may not be need for more, though within the context of a church-based educational plan, for courses or workshops providing background knowledge of the life of Jesus, additional information might be well received.  At the least, this would include knowledge about the diverse groups that are mentioned in the NT—Pharisees and Scribes, as well as some knowledge of the Essenes and the Dead Sea Schools.  Given that most of the OT references in the NT are drawn from the Septuagint, some knowledge of that, including sample comparative passages with the Hebrew text might be of value.  Such a comparative reading may offer some valuable insights into the NT that would not be accessible without the comparison.

For other adults seeking a deeper walk with the Lord, biblical and related-historical knowledge could play a more pivotal role in sustaining a high-level faith formation.  Thus, someone with a more cerebral orientation might want to know why the OT portions of their Protestant Bibles are not based on the English translation of the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text.  This could open up questions about the Council of Jenna (96 AD) and the shaping of the Christian canon, including differences between Protestant and Catholic and Orthodox resolutions.  More broadly, our cerebral-focused faith walker might appreciate a deeper understanding of the Second Temple Judaic period, a curiosity that could be opened up through reading N. T. Wright’s masterful The New Testament and the People of God or Jesus and the Victory of God.  Wright’s texts provide commentary on the wide ranging Jewish literature discussed in Beale and Boyarin.

To kick this up a notch, for those teaching in Christian adult contexts or for those preaching the Word, a reasonable working knowledge of the extra-Biblical Jewish texts, could be additionally helpful, all things being equal, which they seldom are.  Much of this information could be learned contextually, as teachers and preachers consult various sources in preparing specific teaching topics or sermon series.  Even still, in Christ-Centered Biblical Theology, Goldsworthy offers an important insight, namely:

“We have recognized the value of intertestamental texts for understanding the history and culture of the Jews and thus as background to the New Testament.  However, in the canonical perspective, irrespective of the value of the literary works of the period, the prophetic value of these texts is nil” (p. 65).

That’s strong, and may be overstated, but not too much, if one accepts the Bible, in its current canonical form, as the primary source of the revealed Word of God, then the canon, itself should remain the primary source of focus, even while accepting the value of the extra-biblical Jewish sources, as not only providing historical and textual “background” knowledge, but also for additional illumination on the OT and NT texts that might not be otherwise available.

 In his interpretation of the extra-biblical literature, Boyarin has cogently argued in his reading of Daniel 7 on the relationship between the Ancient of Days (God) and the Son of Man, an incarnational interpretation of God enjoyed respectable currency in the Second Temple literature outside of the OT and NT.  On this he notes, the primary contribution of Christianity was its recognition that Jesus, the Messiah was portrayed as God in human flesh.  That there were anticipations of a Messiah, an incarnational theology, and an apocalyptic longing for the coming of the Lord throughout the extra-biblical literature was a given. That’s a valuable insight that can evoke a spirit of understanding, humility, awe, and capacity to enter into respectful interfaith discussions with interested members of the Jewish faith.  Arguably, it is not absolutely necessary for an in-depth appreciation of the Christian faith on its own terms, though it can be helpful.

With these last points folded in among those with specialized interests, the extra-biblical knowledge may have additional value.  With those possessing a more theological orientation, one might want a reasonable working knowledge of this literature to better contextual the Bible and the historical background of both Judaism and Christianity, in which Wright’s texts provide a good deal of that background information.  The theologically oriented faith walker might concentrate more on biblical theology, as exemplified by Goldsworthy, than thick exegesis itself, which seems to be more of the focus of this course. 

That leaves those seeking specialized biblical knowledge for which the literature highlighted in this course opens up invaluable insight.  For those with that interest, the studies introduced here provide useful background for in-depth biblical interpretation.  As exemplified in Beale, even for this group, work would need to extend beyond exegesis, enter into critical dialogue with biblical, historical, and systematic theology, and into the life of the church community.  The extra-biblical Jewish literature could factor into all of these dialogues, but finding pathways into them related to such purposes would be a most critical challenge that would take a variety of forms.

Context matter.