Amy-Jill Levine

Luke and the Jewish Religion

After delineating the difficulties of defining “religion” and “Judaism/Jewish/Jews,” this article traces Luke’s presentation of Jewish religious markers: circumcision, temple worship, sacred space (Jerusalem, synagogues) and sacred time (Sabbath), Scripture, and myth. It argues that Luke renders Jewish practice and belief, outside of Jesus’ interpretation, as relegated to the past, insignificant, corrupt, or co-opted by Jesus and his followers.

Roland Murphy, The Pontifical Biblical Commission, Jews, and the Bible

Roland Murphys understanding of the Old Testament both on its own terms and as interpreted throughout the history of the Church provides a helpful complement to the Pontifical Biblical Institutes THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. This article expands on Murphys own critique of the document (BTB 32.3 [2002]: 145-49) in its analysis of seven issues: contextual understanding, historical criticism, use of the Old Testament to interpret the New, Jewish interpretation, comparing Testaments, Formative Judaism, and the Shoah. It concludes that Murphys ways of understanding the Old Testament provide helpful guides for correcting and improving the PBC document.

The gentilemen's agreement

In her classic novel, Laura Z. Hobson described how genteel society maintained its restricted neighbourhoods, businesses and clubs through a ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ (Hobson 1947). The agreement was simply presupposed, and everyone knew it. No law was needed; no signs reading ‘Niggers, Jews, and dogs unwelcome’ were posted, although occasionally the more polite term ‘Restricted’ did appear. The agreement prevailed in the academy as well: while those ‘not of the right type’ were refused admission, children of alumni were welcomed through an unspoken affirmative action based not only on select ethnic, racial and religious identifications but also on class status. The agreement was exacerbated on those campuses where sororities and fraternities determined social policy and insiders chose their colleagues via the unfortunately albeit aptly named system of ‘black-balling’. Today the system continues, occasionally masked by token enfranchisement and frequently profiting from similarly restricted neighbourhoods, businesses and clubs built by and for those made unwelcome elsewhere. Compared with this tacit system, the German academy should be applauded: it does not hide the criteria that determine who may belong to which club or who may teach in what programme: Christian theists are welcome in Theology Departments; atheists as well as non-Christian children of Abraham are not. Honesty is certainly preferable to smug silence. Within the United States some undergraduate departments of religion as well as seminaries designed to prepare students for the ministry have, like the German system, explicit theological requirements. My concern, however, is with the Gentleman’s Agreement in institutions of higher education that promote themselves as not restrained by any confession but rather as having an ethos of open inquiry. American departments of religion (which teach undergraduates) and University-based divinity schools (with a graduate student clientele) have been known to maintain their own parochial system, which might be called the Gentileman’s Agreement. Originally, like the rest of the faculty at their schools, faculty comprising these programmes were male, white and Christian. University-based divinity schools sometimes drew upon Jewish professors from arts and science departments of religion or from graduate programmes to supplement their own courses, but such faculty would not hold a joint appointment; conversely, Christian Professors of New Testament in arts and science departments may well hold a joint appointment with a divinity school. These were days when white Christian men taught everything; ‘women’s studies’ and ‘Jewish Studies’ didn’t exist; African-American studies was limited to a few references in history courses to Martin Luther King, Jr; Asia was ignored. Finally, during the 1960s and 1970s, women, men and women of Asian and African descent, and others from groups with co-opted histories, gained both programmes dedicated to their identities as well as teaching positions in such programmes. The benefits of such programmes extended beyond the broadening of the academic enterprise to personal affirmation: students from such groups now had role models who ‘looked like them’. Having attended a women’s college, I can personally testify to the importance of seeing someone who ‘looked like me’ at the lectern. When these multicultural doors opened, a number of departments of religion then explicitly promulgated a ‘you are what you

Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community

The most Jewish of gospels in its contents and yet the most anti-Jewish in its polemics, the Gospel of Matthew has been said to mark the emergence of Christianity from Judaism. This text overturns the interpretation by showing us how Matthew, far from proclaiming the replacement of Israel by the Christian church, wrote from within Jewish tradition to a distinctly Jewish audience. Recent research reveals that among both Jews and Christians of the first century, many groups believed in Jesus while remaining close to Judaism. Saldarini argues that the author of the Gospel of Matthew belonged to such a group, supporting his claim with an informed reading of Matthews text and historical context. Matthew emerges as a Jewish teacher competing for the commitment of his people after the catastrophic loss of the Temple in 70 C.E., his polemics aimed not at all Jews but at those who oppose him. Saldarini shows that Matthews teaching about Jesus fits into first-century Jewish thought, with its tradition of God-sent leaders and heavenly mediators. In Saldarinis account, Matthews Christian-Jewish community is a Jewish group, albeit one that deviated from the larger Jewish community.