Roland Murphy, The Pontifical Biblical Commission, Jews, and the Bible - Book Review

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2003 by Amy-Jill Levine

Thus, the PBC Document, by its sanguine utilization of historical-critical matters for New Testament materials, risks reinscribing an anti-Jewish view, losing any sense of the Old Testament as having its own substantive value, and recognizing the mutually interpretive roles of the two Testaments. Connections between the two Testaments, as well as between early Christian and early Jewish thought, are lost.

From Old Testament to Jewish Interpretation

The Judaism presented remains remarkably monolithic, in good measure because it remains bound to the Old Testament. While the PBC does a credible job in tracing both continuity and discontinuity between the two Testaments, it does not sufficiently indicate that this same continuity/lack of continuity can be found throughout the Second Temple period and subsequently through Rabbinic materials. Three examples here--on Temple, Law, and canonization--indicate this concern.

The PBC speaks of how the "New Testament relativizes the adequacy of a material edifice as a dwelling place of G-d ..."; but in doing so it insists that "Judaism" (implicitly equated with the Old Testament) is still interested only in Law and Temple. Missing are Rabbinic views on the Temple and on Gemilut Hasidim (which, along with Torah and Avodah, are the pillars upon which the world rests [Avot 1:2]). One might have also looked for discussion of the Old Testament's well-developed view of the omnipresence of the divine and its critique as well as with support of sacred space, along with a notice of "sacred space" within the Catholic tradition.

A similar case can be made for the PBC's observation that the Matthean Jesus at times "abolishes the letter of the law" in reference to the talion (Exodus 21:24). Jesus states (Matt 5:38-39a), "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, 'Do not resist an evildoer.'" Following this are the statements about turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, and giving up one's shirt. The impression given is that "Judaism" clings to the "letter" (with the implication that Jesus/the Church substitutes the "spirit"). Missing is Talmudic discussion; Baba Kamma 84a, noting that the excision of an eye might kill someone, concludes the injunction means "monetary compensation" and even suggests that the lex talionis was never carried out. Jesus advises not vengeance but rather pacifistic subversion of evil. For his situation as well as that of Matthew, that of a member of a group under Roman domination, the advice makes great sense. The Rabbinic comments--written in relation to tort law and positing a world where law is kept by communal morality rather than by Roman might--insist on justice, for mercy without justice is both naive and suicidal. Thus we have a single text, read by both Church and Synagogue with continuity and discontinuity.

The continuity with the Old Testament seen in Matthew as well as the discontinuity with it seen in the Rabbinic texts complicates the PBC's overly general claim that "the passage from one Testament to the other also involves ruptures ... [that] impinge upon whole tracts of the Law: for example, institutions like the levitical priesthood of the Jerusalem Temple; cultic forms like animal sacrifice; religious and ritual practices like circumcision, rules concerning purity and impurity, dietary prescriptions; imperfect laws such as divorce; restrictive legal interpretations concerning the sabbath. It is clear that--from the viewpoint of Judaism--these are matters of great importance for it. But it is also clear that the radical replacement in the New Testament was already adumbrated in the Old Testament and so constitute a potentially legitimate reading." Yes and no. The Levitical priesthood and Temple sacrifice remain important for the Church as well, since their functions and images are incorporated into ecclesiastical offices and Eucharistic practice. Ritual practices continue in the Church, from sacraments to fasts to traditions on how and when to pray. The Church too has expressed concerns for purity and impurity (Catholic readers of a certain age will remember the equivalents or near-equivalents of ritual purity, from not eating meat on Friday to fasting and confessing before partaking of the Eucharist) ; dietary concerns continue both in the materials out of which consecrated hosts can be made to fast days to Lenten restrictions and through to cultural norms.