The biblical injunction against false weights
and measures is repeated throughout the Hebrew Scriptures,
elaborated in the Talmud, treated under three separate headings
in the rabbinic literature on the 613 commandments, and codified
by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah (taking up two
whole chapters), by Yaakov Ben Asher in his Arba‘ah
Turim and by Yoseph Karo in his Shulhan Arukh
(the entry in Hoshen Mishpat including 28 subdivisions).1
The first occurrence
of this important command is at the close of the holiness precepts
in Lev. 19 (vv. 35-37): “You shall not falsify measures
of length, weight, or capacity. You shall have an honest balance,
honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin.
I the Lord am your God who freed you from the land of Egypt.
You shall faithfully observe My laws and all My rules: I am
the Lord” (NJV). The fact that these words follow vv.
33-34, which enjoin the people of Israel to love the stranger
who resides among them as they love themselves, was not missed
by the rabbis.2 More fully,
the injunction is repeated in Deut. 25:13-16: “You shall
not have in your pouch alternate weights, larger and smaller.
You shall not have in your house alternate measures, a larger
and a smaller. You must have completely honest weights and completely
honest measures, if you are to endure long on the soil that
the Lord your God is giving you. For everyone who does those
things, everyone who deals dishonestly, is abhorrent to the
Lord your God.”
The principle of
this prohibition is clear: It is forbidden to use a short weight/measure
when weighing out the produce sold, while using a large weight/measure
when weighing out the money received in payment. It is deceitful,
unjust, and unfair. That’s why the Scripture promises
the people of Israel long life on their native soil if they
would be obedient to this rule. As expressed by Abraham Ibn
Ezra: “It is a known fact that every kingdom based on
justice will stand. Justice is like a building. Injustice is
like the cracks in that building, which cause it to fall without
a moment’s warning.” 3
In light of this,
and remembering the Lord’s hatred for injustice, it is
only natural that prophets like Amos, Micah and Ezekiel abhorred
the practice of false scales and measures, and the words of
Proverbs make perfect sense: “False scales are an abomination
to the Lord; an honest weight pleases Him” (11:1); “Honest
scales and balances are the Lord’s; all the weights in
the bag are His work” (16:11); “False weights and
false measures, both are an abomination to the Lord” (20:10);
and “False weights are an abomination to the Lord; dishonest
scales are not right” (20:23).
Of course, these
verses deal almost entirely with principles of economic
and commercial fairness, and later rabbinic discussion
deals almost exclusively with these areas. But Rabbi Chaim Ibn
Attar, author of the standard Torah commentary Or HaChaim,
makes an important observation on the key words in Deut: 25:16
-- kol ‘oseh ’elleh kol ‘oseh ‘awel,
“everyone who does those things, everyone who deals dishonestly.”
He explains that the words “those things”
refer to weights and measures, but that the more general words,
“everyone who deals dishonestly” are there so that
no one would think of restricting the injunction against dishonest
practices to just these areas. Rather, the Torah is against
all who deal dishonestly. In fact, even in the realm
of economic dishonesty alone, Yaakov Ben Asher, the Ba‘al
HaTurim, notes: “He who violates the law of just
weights is considered to be in rebellion against the entire
body of mitzvot. One cannot pretend to serve God and,
at the same time, deceive one’s fellow man.”4
Thus, according to both the Scriptures and the rabbinic writings,
this is a weighty issue (no pun intended)!
But what has all
this got to do with the anti-missionaries? Simply everything.
Their whole practice of using one canon of criticism when treating
the New Testament, while using an entirely different canon of
criticism when treating the Tanakh and the Talmud, smacks of
the practice of false weights and measures. It is an abomination
in the eyes of the Lord, and it can only bring disgrace to the
anti-missionaries.
Let me explain.
When attacking the New Testament -- that is exactly
what the anti-missionaries do -- they often use a three-pronged
approach: hyper-literality, alleged contradictions, and alleged
misquotations.
In terms of hyper-literality,
they will ask: “Do you literally believe what Jesus said?
Then, if your right eye is causing you to sin, you should gouge
it out and throw it away!” Or, “Didn’t Jesus
say, ‘Give to him who asks you?’ Then give me your
wallet, your shirt, and the keys to your car!” Or, in
abusing the concept of the incarnation (I doubt that many of
our opponents actually try to understand the incarnation in
any serious way) they will use coarse quips such as, “Does
your God wear diapers?”5
The overall effect of their hyper-literality is to try and make
our faith seem idiotic and absurd.
In terms of alleged
contradictions, these can be divided into two categories: historical
problems and apparent contradictions within the New Testament
sources themselves. A favorite passage of the anti-missionaries
is Stephen’s speech in Acts 7, a speech supposedly brimming
with error. And, if we would object that, even if there were
errors (I do not believe there are) it would be no problem,
since inspiration only means that Luke accurately recorded what
Stephen said, the hyper-literal anti-missionaries are quick
to point out that Stephen was “filled with the Spirit”
when he spoke. Thus, according to them, if he really had spoken
in the Spirit, he could not have made an error! As
for apparent contradictions within the sources, the Gospel accounts
of Yeshua’s betrayal, crucifixion, and resurrection, or
the accounts of Saul’s Damascus road experience in Acts
are singled out as being hopelessly at odds with themselves.6
The overall effect of these accusations is to try and make our
Scriptures appear utterly untrustworthy.
In terms of alleged
misquotations, we are generally pointed to verses like Mat.
2:23, “He will be called a Nazarene” -- supposedly
an entirely fabricated verse; and Heb. 10:5, “A body you
have prepared for me” -- supposedly a blatant alteration
of the Hebrew of Psa. 40:6; or, verses allegedly wrenched from
their original context, like Hos. 11:1b, “I called My
son out of Egypt,” quoted in Mat. 2:15; and Isa. 7:14,
the Immanuel prophecy, quoted in Mat. 1:23.7
The overall effect of these accusations is especially serious.
It tries to give the impression that the authors of the New
Testament were not only idiotic and untrustworthy; according
to the anti-missionaries, they were actually devious and deceitful.8
The plain truth
is this: It is the anti-missionaries who are often being devious
and deceitful. For if they would be honest with themselves,
they would have to admit that, using the same canon of criticism
on their own sacred texts, they would utterly shipwreck their
own faith. In other words, if the New Testament would be disqualified
by anti-missionary arguments in one hour, using those same arguments,
the Tanakh would be disqualified in a matter of minutes and
the Talmud in a matter of seconds! The anti-missionaries will
readily accept the views of critical, nihilistic New Testament
scholars, while following only rigidly conservative (generally,
traditional Jewish) scholars of the Old Testament.9
Stop and think
for a moment. What if the shoe were on the other foot? What
if the anti-missionaries believed in the New Testament and we
were left to defend the Tanakh and the rabbinic writings? What
would the anti-missionaries do then? Just imagine what their
unsympathetic and shallow hyper-literality would do with passages
like Gen. 2:18-20, where the Lord apparently brought giraffes,
monkeys, elephants, and armadillos to Adam, only to find that
none of them would make a good wife for him;10
or, Exod. 4:24-26, where the Lord sent Moses to Egypt to deliver
His people, but tried to kill him on the way -- because he failed
to circumcise his son. And I’m sure they would also have
plenty of comments to make about God’s bow that appears
in the sky after the showers (Gen. 9:12ff.), or about the “windows
of heaven” that are opened to allow the rain that is above
the expanse to fall to earth (Gen. 7:11).
What would the
anti-missionaries do with the moving story of the ‘aqedah?
Would they ridicule a God Who tests the obedience of His faithful
servant by asking him to slaughter his own son? (Of course,
they would also point out that according to the text, He is
hardly omniscient -- see Gen. 22:12). Would they contrast the
goodness of the Heavenly Father in the New Testament with the
cruelty of Yahweh in the Old -- a Yahweh Whose incessant hardening
of Pharaoh caused him to lead Egypt to disaster, even when Pharaoh
was ready to let Israel go? Just picture how the anti-missionaries
would glory in the mercy of the Son of God, “Father, forgive
them, for they know not what they do,” while denigrating
the Lord’s command to exterminate totally the Canaanites
-- men, women, children, and babies. And would they be sympathetic
to the fact that the Torah legislated slavery (Exod.
21:1-11), or that when the Israelites went to war, the Torah
permitted them to spare good looking virgins for possible future
wives (Deut. 21:10-14)? And have the anti-missionaries forgotten
that, historically speaking, the great problem has been that
the God of the Old Testament seems to be a less compassionate,
gracious, and universal God than the God of the New Testament?
This has always been an issue for New Testament theologians,
as well as for destructive Gnostic critics like Marcion, or
less radically, like Adolph Harnack. One need only think of
the vicious work of Friederich Delitzsch -- son of the brilliant
Franz Delitzsch, a true friend of Israel -- attacking the Old
Testament as dangerous, and recommending that it be dropped
from seminary curriculum.11
Remember, it is Psalm 137 -- not the New Testament -- that pronounces
a blessing on those who smash Babylon’s babes on the rocks.12
What if the anti-missionaries were attacking this?!
As for the God
of the Talmud and Midrash, He could not possibly fare much better.
What would the anti-missionaries say of a God who asked
for prayer for Himself? Yet, in a famous Talmudic account,
the Lord asks the high priest to pray for Him!13
Doubtless, the anti-missionaries would also have great fun with
a God Who wore tallis and tefillin, studied
Torah, and weaved ornamental crowns for its letters,14
or a God whose decrees could be nullified by a tsaddik.15
As for the sensational tales and exploits of the sages, if taken
at face value they would make the stories in the National
Enquirer look sober and reliable.16
And there is no doubt that Talmudic dialectology would receive
the derision of the mocking anti-missionaries. To give just
one example, consider the Talmudic phenomenon called teyku
(Aramaic for, “It remains standing”), used in cases
where there is no possible way to arrive at a definitive answer
to the halakhic problem presented.17
A classic case of teyku occurs with reference to the
search for leaven on Passover.18
The problem, as summarized by Prof. Louis Jacobs, is presented
by Rava, a fourth century Babylonian Amora: “Supposing,
asks Rava, a mouse is seen entering a house that has been searched
and found to be clean of leaven. The mouse has a morsel of bread
in its mouth, and is later seen coming out of the house with
a morsel of bread in its mouth. Are we to conclude that it is
the same mouse and the same morsel (i.e., and, consequently,
the house does not require to be searched again) or are we to
be apprehensive that it might be a different mouse and morsel
(so that the house must be searched again)? Supposing, continues
Rava, we say that it is the same mouse, then what would be the
law where a white mouse having leaven in its mouth is seen entering
the house and then a black mouse with leaven in its mouth is
seen coming out of the house? Here, since it is a different
mouse, it must be assumed that it is a different piece of leaven,
or, possibly, it can be argued, it is the same piece of leaven
which the black mouse has taken from the white mouse (and the
house requires no further search). If we argue that mice do
not snatch food from one another, what is the law if a mouse
is seen to enter the house with leaven in its mouth and then
a weasel comes out of the house with leaven in its mouth? Weasels
certainly take food from mice and it can therefore be assumed
that it is the same piece of leaven, or it may be assumed to
be a different piece of leaven, otherwise it would have been
the mouse, not the leaven, that was in the weasel’s mouth.
And, further, what is the law where the weasel comes out with
both the mouse and the leaven in its mouth? The Talmud concludes,
as it invariably does when faced with an insoluble problem of
this type, teyku . . .”19
Would the anti-missionaries
find this to be sublime, inspired, and edifying? I
can almost hear them contrasting such Talmudic dialectics with
the awesome power and simplicity of 1 Corinthians 13 or the
spiritual heights of Romans 8. Let’s be honest: If the
anti-missionaries disparage the Sermon on the Mount, what would
they do with the Talmud’s 39 sub-divisions of prohibited
Shabbat labor? How they would they take refuge in Yeshua’s
authoritative word from heaven, standing as it does in such
stark contrast to the opinions and traditions of men!
Continuing for
another moment on the subject of hyper-literality, what would
the anti-missionaries do with the lex talionis -- the
eye for eye, tooth for tooth law of retribution -- especially
in light of the Torah’s emphasis “to show no pity”?20
They certainly would not accept the claim of the oral
tradition that these statutes always and only referred to monetary
compensation! Or consider the law in Deut. 25:11-12, ordering
the Israelites to cut off the hand of a woman who grabbed the
genitals of a man fighting with her husband. Think how they
would ridicule no less a luminary than the Rambam -- Moses Maimonides
-- since he taught that even if a proven prophet urged literal
obedience to this Torah law21
(as opposed to following the sages’ interpretation of
monetary compensation here also), then that prophet should be
strangled as a false prophet!22
Thus, a proven prophet following the plain sense of the Scripture
carries less weight than the oral tradition. I can almost see
the young ba‘al teshuvah dropping his head in
despair as the anti-missionary gently points out to him that
following the rabbis is cult-like. Yes, the anti-missionary
would doubtless recommend serious deprogramming, especially
for those poor souls who had spent years learning in a Yeshivah!
More seriously,
have the anti-missionaries chosen to ignore the fact that to
this day, it is the Talmud that is ridiculed and scorned for
allegedly sanctioning such horrible sins as murder, pederasty,
and bestiality? There is no religious text on earth more liable
to misinterpretation and abuse than the Talmud -- consider the
notorious writings of Johann A. Eisenmenger, August Rohling,
and more recently, Theodore Winston Pike and even James McKeever
and Gary North23 -- yet, the
anti-missionaries are willing to attack the New Testament writings
in the basest ways, freely utilizing the findings of the most
radical, negative New Testament critics.24
Of course, the anti-missionaries know full well that as Messianic
Jews we will not retaliate in kind: First, because we are Jews,
we will give no fuel to the anti-Semitic fire of those who viciously
attack the Talmud; second, we all have some degree of appreciation
for at least some parts of the Talmud, even though we differ
with its presuppositions; and third, since most of us know very
little about the Talmud, we could not criticize it even if we
wanted to! And who among us would ever dream of attacking the
Tanakh -- our own sacred Scriptures? Yet it is easy for the
anti-missionaries to take pot-shots at the New Testament because
of its limited size as well as its wide accessibility. Once
again, the anti-missionaries are guilty of unethical practices
-- hitting below the belt because they know we won’t “counter
punch.”
Moving on to the
subject of historical problems,25
consider how the anti-missionaries would contrast Luke’s
excellent reputation as a historian26
-- remember, for the sake of this paper, the shoe is still on
the other foot! -- with the apparent historical problems in
the Torah. First and foremost would be the literal six-day creation
with a six thousand year-old earth. How unscientific! Then there
would be the problem of the apparently anachronistic appearance
of the Philistines in the patriarchal narratives, or the lack
of any clear Egyptian historical evidence for the exodus.27
And what would they do with the Talmudic chronology, a chronology
that makes Zerubbabel, Malachi, Ezra, and Simeon the Just into
contemporaries, reduces the Persian period (from the rebuilding
of the Temple under Zerubbabel in 516 B.C.E. to Alexander’s
conquest) to 34 years, incorrectly tallies the duration of the
First and Second Temples,28
and (apparently) places Yeshua with sages who lived in both
the second century B.C.E. as well as the second century C.E.?29
As for alleged
contradictions, the anti-missionaries would go wild here, especially
in the Five Books of Moses. After highlighting the apparent
discrepancies in the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2, and
pointing out that the Torah sometimes provides different etiologies
for the same event --e.g., the naming of Beersheva30
-- they could simply move to the Ten Commandments. After all,
these are the very words of God, and Moses is the key mediatorial
figure in the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet there are several key contradictions
between the commandments as given at Mount Sinai (according
to Exod. 20:1-17) and the repetition of the commandments as
given by Moses (according to Deut. 5:6-21). Most noteworthy
are the numerous differences in the wording of the Sabbath commandment,
beginning with the first word: Did God say remember
(zakhor) the Sabbath, or did He say keep (shamor)
the Sabbath? Just think of how the anti-missionaries would howl
when we sheepishly stated, shamor wezakhor bedibbur ’ekhad
hishmi‘anu ’el hameyukhad: “At Mount
Sinai, the One God simultaneously caused us to hear
the words keep and remember.”31
I don’t imagine the anti-missionaries would be any happier
with our answers to the other differences occurring in the two
Sabbath commandments, or with our explanations for the variations
in the two versions of the command not to covet.32
And undoubtedly, they would question Moses’ trustworthiness
as a transmitter of divine information: If he changed the wording
of the very statements that all the people of Israel heard for
themselves, how could he possibly be trusted with a totally
secret, oral tradition, heard by no Israelites? The
anti-missionaries would also be quick to point out that in Exod.
34:10-26, a completely different decalogue seems to be given,
even stating in v. 28 that it was apparently Moses
-- not the Lord -- who inscribed the words in the stone tablets.
And speaking of Moses, the anti-missionaries would probably
pick on his father-in-law too: Was his name Jethro, Reuel, or
Hobab son of Reuel?33 Before
departing from the Torah, they would throw some parting shots:
Jacob, the elders of Israel, and Moses are credited with seeing
God (Moses spoke with Him face to face),34
yet we are told elsewhere (Exod. 33:20) that no one
can see Him and live. A straightforward reading of Exod. 6:3
states that God’s covenant name, Yahweh, was unknown to
the patriarchs.35 What would
the anti-missionaries do with this?
Having completed
their demolition job on the Torah -- there are dozens of apparent
discrepancies they would gleefully cite -- they could move to
the Talmudic harmonization of these discrepancies, harmonizations
that more often than not violate the peshat.36
After making us dizzy with Talmudic “explanations,”
taking time to point out instances where the interpretation
of the sages is said to “uproot Scripture,”37
they could say: “Remember, we haven’t even touched
on the parallel accounts in the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.
You’re really in trouble there!”38
As for internal
contradictions within the Talmud itself, the classic story of
the martyrdom of Rabbi Akiva appears in various accounts no
less difficult to harmonize than the Gospel accounts of Yeshua’s
betrayal.39 Nor would the zealous
anti-missionaries fail to emphasize that, in a sense, Talmudic
methodology is actually built on endless, often forced,
“reconciliations” of conflicting opinions and interpretations
(there is always the ever present makhloket/makhloikes),
including differences in interpretations of both Scripture and
Mishnah, along with conflicts between Tanna and Tanna, Tanna
and Amora, and Amora and Amora.40
I doubt the anti-missionaries would even let us try to explain
that, “The two mutually contradictory positions are both
the words of the living God!”41
Last but not least,
the anti-missionaries would set upon the subject of misquotation
and/or misinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures within the
rabbinic literature, and even within the Tanakh itself.
The anti-missionaries would confront us with the fact that Deut.
24:16, a rare Torah verse quoted in its entirety in the historical
books, appears in 2 Kin. 14:6 as well as in 2 Chr. 25:4, yet
both times the wording is different! There is even a variation
of the verbal forms in 2 Chr. 25:4 yamutu, “they
will die,” vs. the original yumatu, “they
will be put to death.” Wasn’t every word of the
Torah dictated to Moses? Yet the other biblical writers
couldn’t even copy one verse accurately! Ezra also makes
reference in prayer to the “commandments which You gave
us through Your servants the prophets when You said . . .”
(Ezra 9:10-12), but the words quoted are not found in that exact
form elsewhere in the Scriptures.42
As for Talmudic
usage of Scripture, the anti-missionaries would have a field
day. They would ridicule the interpretation of Exod. 34:27,
where “Write down these commandments, for in
accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you
and with Israel” is quoted to demonstrate the supremacy
of the oral (!) Torah.43
They would certainly question the moral integrity of the sages
who interpreted the end of Exod. 23:2 to say, “Follow
the majority,”44 whereas
the verse is universally understood by both Jewish and Christian
exegetes and translators to mean, “Don’t follow
the majority”! Then, after some digging, the anti-missionaries
would come up with some surprising -- and potentially damaging
-- information: In addition to apparent misinterpretations,
the actual Talmudic citations of the Hebrew Scriptures
sometimes vary from the Masoretic tradition,45
and there is at least one instance in which part of a verse
not found in any Masoretic biblical manuscript is quoted
by the fourth century sage Rav Nahman Bar Isaac -- to the consternation
of the later Talmudic commentators.46
Of course, we have
only scratched the surface of what the anti-missionaries might
say and do should the shoes be on the other feet. But our contention
concerning the anti-missionaries practice of using unequal weights
and measures is clear. Yet there are some very positive and
constructive points that can be made as a result of this discussion,
and it is with these points that we conclude.
First, there are
answers! -- but only for the sympathetic and open. The very
same methodology that can provide answers for the Old Testament
and rabbinic problems referred to in the bulk of this paper
can provide answers for the New Testament problems raised by
the anti-missionaries. For example, the question of the apparent
misquotation of the Tanakh in the Talmud points to valid textual
traditions outside of the Masoretic textual traditions.47
Only when the ancient texts and versions are carefully sifted
can we arrive at an understanding of precisely why a given New
Testament author chose to quote (or, adapt) an Old Testament
verse in a particular form.48
Note also that, compared with the biblical interpretation at
Qumran and rabbinic literature, the New Testament’s usages
of the Old Testament are remarkably sober and well thought out.49
Second, seemingly
strange interpretations should be seen in the light of larger
contextual themes, sometimes even reflecting Targumic or possibly,
on occasion, Midrashic liberties.50
Also, just as the Torah is greatly exalted in rabbinic literature
-- and hence the sages find allusions to the Torah throughout
the Tanakh -- the New Testament writers saw Yeshua as absolutely
central, reading the Tanakh in light of Him.51
Third, we can gain
insight into how best to deal with the Talmud (or even the Koran,
albeit to a much lesser degree). We must be fair to the text,
seeking to understand it through the eyes of its transmitters
and/or interpreters. We must seek to be scientific and honest;
then, we can freely contrast its differences, critique its misinterpretations,
and even cut down its errors -- in fairness and with a spirit
of love.52
Finally, we must
adopt a totally non-defensive posture when dealing
with the anti-missionaries. The truth is with us, and unethical
practices are doomed to fail. As Yeshua said, “Every plant
that My heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by
the roots” (Mat. 15:13).53
Indeed, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words
will never pass away” (Mat. 24:35). Let us boldly proclaim
those eternally valid words!
*(Copyright © 1991, Michael L. Brown)
1
See Lev. 19:35f; Deut.25:13-16; Ezek. 45:9-12; Hos. 12:7; Amos
8:5; Mic. 6:10f.; Prov. 11:1, 16:11, 20:10, 20:23; b. Bava Batra
88b, 89a; b. Bava Mesia 49b, 61b; Sifre Ki Tetze; j. Bava Batra,
Chap. 5, Halakha 11; Yad, Hilkhot Genevah 7:8; Sefer HaMitzvot
(Aseh) 208, (Lo Ta’aseh) 271, 272; Sefer Mitzvot Gadol
(Aseh) 72, (Lav) 151, 152; Sefer Mitzvot Katan 264; Tur and
Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat 231; Sefer HaHinnukh, Mitzvot
258, 259, 602. Cf. also Abraham Chill, The Mitzvot: The
Commandments and Their Rationale (Jerusalem: Keter Books,
1974), 250-252; Samson Raphael Hirsch, Horeb: A Philosophy
of Jewish Laws and Observances (Eng. trans., Dayan Dr.
I. Grunfeld; London: Soncino, 1981), 240-242; “Eyphah
and Eyphah,” in Rabbi Meyer Berlin, et al.,
eds., Talmudic Encyclopedia (Eng. trans., Jerusalem:
Talmudic Encyclopedia Institute, 1982), 2:168ff.
2
See especially Abravanel (cited by Chill, Mitzvot,
252).
3
See Dr. J. H. Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs (London:
Soncino, 1975), 856.
4
See Chill, Miztvot, 251f.
5
Cf., e.g., Samuel Levine, You Take Jesus, I’ll Take
God: How to Refute Christian Missionaries (2nd. ed., Los
Angeles: Hamoroh Press, 1980), 93, Question B16: “Is it
true that your god wore diapers?”
6
For a classic statement of these objections, see Isaac Troki,
Faith Strengthened (Hizzuk Emunah): The Jewish Answer to
Christianity (repr., Brooklyn: Sepher Hermon, 1970), esp.
227-280.
7
Cf., e.g., Michoel Drazin, Their Hollow Inheritance: A Comprehensive
Refutation of the New Testament and Its Missionaries (Jerusalem:
Gefen, 1990), 41.
8
Drazin, Hollow Inheritance, 15-24, accuses the New
Testament and Christianity as a whole of “Pious Fraud.”
9
Gerald Sigal, The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish
Response to Missionary Christianity (New York: Ktav, 1981),
xviii, states in his Preface that he did “not utilize
the works of those Christian scholars who, using the scientific
approach to the New Testament, have, for more than a century,
dismissed as unhistorical many of the traditional episodes in
Jesus’ life.” Needless to say, Sigal does not
mention the fact that like minded “scientific” scholars
-- both Jewish and Christian -- have come to the same negative
conclusions regarding the unhistorical nature of many of the
traditional episodes recounted in the Hebrew Scriptures! Sigal’s
methodology, which seeks to dismantle the literal truthfulness
of the New Testament, would have disastrous effects if used
against his own sacred Scriptures.
10
And what would the anti-missionaries do with the rabbinic comment
that indicates that Adam had sexual relations with the animals
before determining that none of them was suitable? See b. Yebamot
63a, and cf. below, n. 23, for references to attacks against
the Talmud which rabbinic remarks like this have sparked.
11
See John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), esp. 58-109.
12
I actually heard a pro-abortion activist (and self-proclaimed
biblical scholar) on a call-in radio show use this verse to
argue that those who claimed to be true Bible believers had
no right to oppose abortion, since, after all, the Scriptures
sanction child killing!
13
b. Berakhot 7a.
14
See conveniently A. Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud
(New York: Schocken, 1975), 7 (with reference to b. Berakhot
61; b. Rosh Hashanah 17b; and b. Avodah Zarah 3b); and C. G.
Montefiore and H. Loewe, A Rabbinic Theology (New York:
Schocken, 1974), 24 (with reference to b. Shabbat 89a).
15
For references, see Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary,
New Translation, and Special Studies (New York City: The
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978), 251.
16
Cf. Z. H. Chajes, The Student’s Guide through the
Talmud, trans. and ed. by Jacob Shachter (New York: Philipp
Feldheim, 1960), 195-200, “Aggadoth Aimed at
Inspiring and Stirring the Curiosity of the People.” The
issue, of course, is not whether these fabulous accounts actually
occurred; rather, it is an issue of methodology: How would the
anti-missionaries use (or, abuse) such narratives?
17
For complete discussion, see Louis Jacobs, TEYKU: The Unsolved
Problem in the Babylonian Talmud (London: 1981).
18
b. Pesachim 10b.
19
See Louis Jacobs, A Tree of Life: Diversity, Flexibility
and Creativity in Jewish Law (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press,
1984), 28f.
20
Deut. 19:21; cf. also 7:2, 16, 13:8, 19:13, 25:12
21
As cited in the previous note, the Torah (Deut. 25:12) here
enjoins that no pity be shown in the treatment of the woman.
22
Cf. Zvi Lampel, trans., Maimonides’ Introduction to
the Talmud: A Translation of the Rambam’s Introduction
to His Commentary on the Mishna (New York: Judaica Press,
1987), 50: “Altering the Oral Law in any way
is . . . a manifestation of false prophecy, even if the prophet
is ostensibly supported by a literal interpretation of a verse,
as opposed to its actual meaning.” With regard to Deut.
25:12, Maimonides states (ibid.): “If a prophet
would claim that this verse is referring to a literal amputation
of the hand . . . and if he supports such an assertion by the
phenomenon of prophecy, saying, ‘The-Holy-One-Blessed-be-He
has told me that this commandment, “. . . and chop
her palm,” is to be understood literally’ --
he . . . is to be executed by strangulation . . . .”
23
For the references, see Michael L. Brown, Our Hands Are
Stained With Blood: The Tragic Story of the “Church”
and the Jewish People (Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image,
1992), 68f., 199f., 236.
24
Cf. above, n. 9.
25
For those with questions regarding the factual trustworthiness
of the Gospels, Craig L. Blomberg’s The Historical
Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1987) is recommended.
26
Cf. the conclusions of W. Ward Gasque, A History of the
Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1989).
27
The classic work on Israelite history by the German scholar
Martin Noth, The History of Israel (Eng. trans., New
York: Harper & Row, 1960), begins with the period of the
Judges (as if nothing that can be considered verifiable history
took place before then!); the more conservative work of the
French scholar, Roland De Vaux, The Early History of Israel
(Eng. trans., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978), is
still extremely skeptical of the ancient biblical accounts.
28
Cf. Judah M. Rosenthal, “Seder Olam,” Encyclopedia
Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), 14:1091f.
29
The sages in question are Yehoshuah Ben Perachiah (2nd cent.
B.C.E.) and Rabbi Akiva (2nd cent. C.E.). For a concise polemical
treatment, cf. Ben Netzach (pseudonym), “The Historical
Jesus According to the Talmud: FACT or FABLE?” (Orangeburg,
NJ: Chosen People Ministries, n.d.). Of course, modern scholars
who do not affirm the infallibility of the Talmud put little
or no stock in the historicity of the Talmud’s apparent
references to Jesus; cf. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew:
Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume One: The Roots of the
Problem and the Person (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1991),
93ff., and note esp. 95: “scholars of rabbinic literature
do not agree among themselves on whether even a single text
from the Mishna, Tosefta, or Talmud really refers to Jesus of
Nazareth.”
30
Cf. Gen. 21:22-31 and 26:19-33.
31
As rendered poetically in Lecho Dodi, “‘Keep
and Remember!’ -- in One divine Word, He that is One,
made His will heard” (see Dr. Joseph H. Hertz, The
Authorised Daily Prayer Book [New York: Bloch Publishing
Company, 1975], 356f.)
32
See conveniently Abba Ben David, Parallels in the Bible
(Heb., Jerusalem: Carta, 1972), 170f.
33
Cf. Exod. 2:18, 3:1; Numbers 10:29.
34
Cf. Gen. 32:30; Exod. 24:9-11, 33:11; Num. 12:8.
35
Cf. the standard rabbinic commentaries for traditional discussion
of this apparent contradiction.
36
Cf. Chajes, Student’s Guide, 6f.
37
Cf. Eliezer Berkovitz, Not In Heaven: The Nature and Function
of Halakha (New York: Ktav, 1983), 57-64.
38
Abba Ben David’s Parallels in the Bible, 14-164,
makes this abundantly clear. See also James Barr, Fundamentalism
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 309f., where reference is
made to the utilization of these apparent discrepancies in the
polemical writings of Henry Preserved Smith. Also note the better
than two-to-one proportion of Old Testament difficulties as
compared with New Testament difficulties in Gleason L. Archer’s
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1982; the Old Testament section spans 45-306, and the New Testament
section 307-434). While the Old Testament itself is three times
as long as the New Testament, Archer’s treatment of New
Testament difficulties is often more complete than his treatment
of Old Testament difficulties; also, some of the alleged New
Testament discrepancies involve problems with Old Testament
texts and versions. Thus, an equal number of problem passages
are to be found in both Testaments.
39
Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology, 269f., suggest
that j. Berakhot 9:5 (14b, line 59) contains, “The shortest,
and perhaps oldest, version of R. Akiba’s martyrdom.”
Cf. also Gershom Bader, The Encyclopedia of Talmudic Sages
(Eng. trans., Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1988), 277ff. The
most important accounts are found in b. Berakhot 61b and j.
Sotah 4:5 (the reference to j. Berakhot 9:5 in Montefiore and
Loewe is incorrectly given as 9:7).
40
For representative studies on Talmudic methodology, see Rabbenu
Moshe Chaim Luzzato, The Ways of Reason (Eng. trans.,
Jerusalsem: Diaspora Yeshiva/Feldheim Publishers, 1989); Louis
Jacobs, The Talmudic Argument: A study in Talmudic reasoning
and methodology (New York: Cambridge, 1984).
41
For discussion of this classic Talmudic formulation, see Berkovitz,
Not in Heaven, 50-53.
42
For the underlying sources of the Ezra quote, see H. G. M. Williamson,
Ezra-Nehemiah (WBC;Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 137.
43
For the references see Chajes, Student’s Guide,
4, n. 1, where this is quoted with approval.
44
Or, “Don’t follow the mighty . . .” The classic
Talmudic discussion is found in Bava Mesia’ 59b; cf. also
Targ. Onkelos and Rashi ad loc.
45
Rabbi Akiva Eiger provided a list of these variants in his Gilyon
HaShas to the Tosafot on b. Shabbat 55b; cf. also David
Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning
in Rabbinic Exegesis (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991),
208f., n. 30.
46
b. Berakhot 61a; see Harry M. Orlinsky, Prolegomenon to
Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Masoretico-Critical
Edition of the Hebrew Bible (New York, Ktav, 1966), XXII;
Orlinsky’s entire Prolegomenon, “The Masoretic Text:
A Critical Evaluation,” I-XLV, is relevant.
47
See the work of Orlinksy, cited immediately above, n. 46.
48
Cf. Robert Horton Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in
St. Matthew’s Gospel: With Special Reference to the Messianic
Hope (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975).
49
See Gundry, Ibid., 205-234, and note esp. 205: “Both
Qumran hermeneutics and rabbinical hermeneutics are supremely
oblivious to contextual exegesis.” With regard to New
Testament hermeneutics, most specifically Matthean hermeneutics,
Gundry demonstrates that the reverse is true. Anti-missionaries
able to handle Greek and Hebrew could learn much from Gundry’s
study. Cf. also Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis
in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
50
In addition to the works cited in the previous two notes, cf.,
e.g., J. T. Forestell, C.S.B., Targumic Traditions and the
New Testament. An Annotated Bibliography with a New Testament
Index (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1979); R. T. France and
David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives, Vol. III: Studies
in Midrash and Historiography (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983);
Rainer Riesner, Jesu als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung
der Evangelien-Uberlieferung, (WUNT, 2nd Series, 7; Tubingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1988)
51
For example, when Moses cried out to the Lord regarding the
undrinkable condition of the waters of Marah, the Lord showed
him (yorehu) a tree which he then threw into the waters,
making them drinkable (Exod. 15:23ff.) The rabbis saw in the
verb yoreh a reference to the healing powers of the
Torah; the early Christian expositors saw in the tree
a reference to the healing powers of the cross. For New Testament
statements regarding the prophetic anticipation of Jesus in
the Hebrew Scriptures, cf., e.g., Luke 24:25-27; Acts 3:18,
24; for the development of the Old Testament hope in the New
Testament, cf. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Development
of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970).
52
I have sought to use this approach in my audio tape, “Are
the Rabbis Right?” And remember also the wisdom of Prov.
15:1!
53
Both the context of this verse (Mat. 15:1ff.), as well as its
closing words (“Leave them; they are blind guides. If
a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”)
should be noted.
(Copyright © 1991, Michael L. Brown)