Introduction

Amy-Jill Levine writes in her introduction about her childhood growing up among Christian friends.  She speaks about slowly becoming aware of the differences between their faiths and of the negative undercurrents/outright hostility against Judaism that is embedded in Christian thought and tradition.  She remembers though that her Christian friends were good friends who loved her.  She writes, “I am convinced that interfaith conversation is essential if we are to break down the prejudices that have kept synagogue and church in enmity , or at best tolerance, for the past two millennia.” (pg. 5)

Levine reminds us that understanding and appreciation are not necessarily agreement.

She believes that Christians would benefit from this.  She argues that Jesus is “too familiar, too domesticated”  his teachings “ too stripped of their initial edginess”  (pg. 7)

Her goal in this book is to break down barriers of misunderstandings and limited knowledge so that negative stereotypes are removed of their power.

Chapter 1

She starts by stating that the main difference between Judaism and Christianity is the meaning of Jesus.  Essentially was he prophet/teacher or messiah?

Levine argues that Christians need to begin by understanding that Jewish people understand Judaism is a complete religion.  Jewish teaching based on Torah is all that is needed.  They are not all “waiting for a messiah.”

She also talks about the fact that though Jesus is acknowledged as a Jew, it is not central to Christian teachings.  Levine writes, “Jesus still remains defined, incorrectly and unfortunately, as ‘against’ the Law... and not simply against its first century leadership...as ‘against’ the people Israel but in favour of the Gentiles” (pg. 19).  She reminds us that Jesus is often depicted in popular culture looking different from the Jewish people around him.

Levine then starts to talk about how Jesus teachings fit into a Jewish perspective.  Two in particular are The Golden Rule (pg. 21-23) and The Lord’s Prayer (pg. 41-51).

Chapter 3: The New Testament and Anti-Judaism

This chapter begins by trying to define anti-Judaism.  Levine prefers this term for this discussion because it refers to a theological (faith) stance against Judaism.[1]  This book is concerned with understanding the faith relationship between Christianity and Judaism.  She begins by reminding readers that what gets defined as anti-Judaism depends a good deal on the point of view of people.  Each person “brings to a text different presuppositions and experiences, and each will emphasise different parts of the text.” (pg 89)  She also reminds readers that this is not limited to interpreting the bible.  Books, movies, plays, etc. are all subject to interpretation.

One of the most important issues when considering the Bible and anti-Judaism is how people understand the Bible.  There are many different readings of the Bible.  She uses the phrase “canon within a canon” to describe this.  She gives examples of different readings concerning salvation, human sexuality, and ordination of women.

She then gives a creative reading of John 14:6 to demonstrate the difference interpretation could make. (pg 92-93)  When she does this she is doing it in the style of a ‘midrash’ or a retelling of the story to understand each particular word in the text.  A good explanation of midrash is found at:

 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Halakha_&_aggadata_&_midrash.html

Levine then wants to look at various responses to problematic texts in the New Testament and how they deal with whether the text is anti-Judaic or not.

Biblical historians are especially interested in what life was like when the bible was written so they can understand better what people may have been thinking when they wrote it and who they were writing too.    Levine looks at several problematic texts and how different interpretations could affect our understanding of them.

1Thess 2:14-16 “The Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and oppose everyone.” Explanations and Problems

-          Maybe Paul meant the Judeans (Jewish people living in Judea) not all the Jews. Problem: Only referring to part of a group still can insult a whole group.

-          Maybe someone else wrote it. Problem: the text is still in the Bible

-          Maybe Paul was referring only to a specific situation. Problem:  the text is not clear one way or the other so it is impossible to know.

-          Open questions. Is this text anti-Judaism?  Did Paul change his mind later?

 Matt 27:25 “His blood be upon us and our children”  Explanations and Problems

-          The entire scene is suspect.  It does not coincide with behaviour of Romans or other sources description of Pontius Pilate.  Problem:  This verse does contain central teaching of Christianity so it cannot be easily dismissed.  It must be dealt with.

-          If historical understanding alone is not an option therefore the question must be, what is the theological point?

-          In one understanding the people in this scene refer only to specific people in Jerusalem at a specific time. 

-          The people referred to are not Jews only but all of humanity.  But that is not well supported by the text.

-          Another reading is that they are accepting the blood sacrifice of Jesus but this simply turns Jewish people into “hidden Christians”

John 8:44 “You are from your father the devil”

-          John is seen as the most anti-Judaic text.  This is one of many phrases used to support that contention.  It gets explained many ways.  This section is the most technical referring to specific prayers and historical sources.  But the essences of her arguements about John are simple.  Explanations and Problems

-          Not referring to “true Jews” only “bad Jews.”   Only targets leaders not people.  Problem:  same as for 1Thess, criticism of part can easily be construed as criticism of the whole.

-          John was writing in a polemical (argumentative) way against the Jewish community because the new followers of Christ are being rejected for various reasons. It is an insider problem, how could it be anti-Judaism.  Problem:  Just because someone is part of a group doesn’t mean that whatever they say about that group is ok.

-          She also points out that some of the arguments to support these two perspectives rely on historical evidence that is questionable.

“When discussion moves from individual verses to the Gospels as a whole, additional explanations... or excuse.. for potentially anti-Jewish New Testament passages appear.” (pg110)

-          Jesus (and by extension the gospels and letters) is no more critical than other prophets.  Problems:  The gospel claim is that Jesus is more than a prophet.  Also the prophets words were preserved for Jews by Jews, not so the words of Jesus so the context changes.

-          The gospels are in fact insider documents, especially Matthew.  Problem:  as above, there is no carte blanche for insiders to say anything and still be an insider.  Also the historical “facts” are questionable leading to the question of what is the theological point of the text.

Her resolution to these problems is to try to listen with new ears.  Instead of dismissing or explaining away anti-Judaism, Christians should listen and find out what people are reacting to.  Depending on historical explanations is not enough, there needs to be a shift in theological explanations too.