| WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY TO THIS?
Paul, in his letter to the Romans, uses at least five times the Aramaic expression "What then shall we say to this?" Those words, mai qâ mashma lan? which were often addressed to the congregation at the end of the sermon, challenged the hearers to reflect, at a practical level, on the significance of the issues. The Christian faith is a way of life and in baptism the Christian becomes a disciple of Jesus. What kind of Jesus has been imprinted on our minds now that we have described him in the light of both the literature of his own time and that of the oldest and least-censored normative Jewish sources? The best overview of our presentation will be gained by a glance at the table of contents. Our subject has been very far-ranging and difficult. Scholarliness generally presupposes in the first place the organised and consistent outlining of generally accepted and certain data. We have seen regarding the idiographic disciplines -- that is, those concerned with conceptual thinking -- that they demand the finding of the "leading viewpoints" of the issues, their topos or 'location' in man's thought life. For that reason, "The Messiah in the O.T." contained a fairly extensive discussion of the autonomy of the Humanities and the importance of finding an appropriate method and corpus of data.80 And here it must not be forgotten that conclusions most nearly approximating correctness can be made only by proceeding with the subject from the general to the particular. The question of the comprehensiveness of the research is, however, extremely difficult in the study of the Bible, because it represents a Semitic world-view. Furthermore, as has been shown in many of the more recent Midrash studies, even the gospels and the letters of Paul reflect the Rabbinic method of presentation and argumentation. The Finnish professor Timo Veijola put it beautifully in one of his studies when he said that the communication of the theology of the Old Testament to the general public is a difficult task in that:
In these roots studies my aim has been to fill a general lack, which dominates the theology of both the Old and the New Testaments regarding "generally accepted and certain data" on Judaism. If a critic is ignorant of this, he will be led to tender arguments which are quite unrealistic concerning the foundations of our religion. Of this ilk are, among others, the opposition to the theology of "fulfilment of prophecy", and the thesis that Luke knew nothing of the doctrine of the Atonement. No doubt we are each one of us biased and we come to our subject with preconceived notions one way or another. All generalisations -- whether liberal or literal -- are, in scholarly circles, "harmonisations" which have been ruled out of court. Romans 12:6, speaking of "prophesying . . . in proportion to one's faith", uses the Greek phrase kata ten analogian tes pisteos -- we are to act "according to the analogy of faith"! If we proceed thus because we are convinced of the reliability of the material we are studying, it is considered a protest. Nevertheless, unbelief too creates its own analogies, and it can arise from an already existing form which is opposed. The word 'protest' actually means 'being on the side of something'. If some research method has been sanctified as the only acceptable scholarly method, the whole discussion may only lead to "a kind of stalemate", as one academic expressed it: "The different parties are prisoners of each others' methodologies and that of their general situation. "82 Our roots studies do not attempt to take Jewish exegetical methods as "models", but only by being aware of the peculiar characteristics of Jewish scripture exposition can we understand to what thought world the NT's presentation belongs. Secondly, it is precisely the "models" of the Jewish literature which prove the issues to be historical. The tendency towards fissiparousness, in which the problems are fragmented into tiny units can, it is true, give valuable support to the whole, but all too often the solutions which "arise most naturally from the texts", and which correspond to their own "illumination", lead to interpretations which are at variance with the text. Still further, if we strive scientifically to prove something to be "unhistorical", the net result of our efforts is to invalidate the whole exercise of theology. A good example of one individual's illumination would be Islam: Muhammad, a young camel driver, had no more than secondhand acquaintance with Christianity and Judaism, but from these he formed a cult practice which to his mind suited his own culture better. In the light of everything which has been said we would do well to take seriously the observation made by the Lutheran World Federation in Bossey in August 1982: "In encounter with Judaism and the Jewish people, the Church gains a fuller understanding of its own biblical roots". This discovery will effect a "new lease of faith" in every area of church life. The Rabbinic material relating to the interpretation of the New Testament is so abundant that it should not be approached in an offhand manner. All the Mediaeval and later Rabbinic OT commentaries are, it is true, in the so-called "RaSHI" script, which is different from the normal Hebrew letters and thus looks like an insurmountable wall to anyone who attempts to read one of the works. But when you have conquered this initial difficulty, the Hebrew language in the texts is relatively easy. Since the Christian Church's main research should concentrate on christology, the fundamentals of the Messianic hope, it will be seen from our two roots studies just how far-ranging the Messianic frame of reference opens out from the least-censored, legitimate Jewish sources, the Targumim, Midrashim and Zohar. Methodology does indeed emphasise, particularly from the point of view of the subject under study, the importance of appropriate source material. The Christian writer should have the courage to dive into the Bible's own native soil and at least listen to what the oldest OT interpreters have to say about its text. What fruit then has this NT study of ours yielded? The most important thing is probably to recognise that in particular the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan and the Midrash contain a powerful Messianic theme, which is still reflected in Mediaeval Rabbinic exegesis, particularly in the commentaries of RaSHI, and they almost always touch upon some NT thought. Secondly, in the mode of presentation and way of thinking of the gospels and Paul's letters, we can often see reasoning typical of the synagogue preaching literature. Furthermore, we can already today see just how powerfully the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has affected the understanding and reappraisal of, in particular, the gospel of John and the Pauline theology. Even critical and unprejudiced scholars such as John A.T. Robinson have had to date the origin of the gospels even earlier than any writer branded as a fundamentalist could ever have dreamed. And the 'Jerusalem School' has begun to shake the working hypothesis, ossified in the minds of theologians, that Mark was the earliest evangelist. For these reasons, it might turn out, as Robinson reckons, that the 'Introductions' used as textbooks in theological seminaries will have to be renewed. We have also seen that, from the point of view of their content, the gospels dovetail with the world of Jewish thought and values, although Jesus' teaching represents a much earlier stage than the bulk of the Rabbinic statements which are parallel to his. It is clearly apparent from the Talmud that the Sages have consciously steered clear of interpretations with a Christian feel to them. The Lord's Prayer contains phrases and requests from pre-Christian times which have been preserved in the Jewish prayer literature, although "only Jesus could have prayed such a prayer in his own day", as Dr Gottlieb Klein pointed out. It furthermore displays features allusive to the belief in the resurrection. In the light of Midrash Ruth, the Midrash on Psalm 22 and the Jewish prayer literature, the Lord's Holy Communion is to be understood as a Messianic meal which hints at an eternal perspective. Genuine material is also evident in Jesus' eschatological discourses, material which cannot be "early church theology" invented later by the disciples themselves. They are to be understood on a dispensational basis, with "two days of the Messiah" and two fulfilments of the End Times. Throughout Jesus' teaching we find the "Messianic motif", be it a question of his self-proclamation, his teaching discourses or parables. "Such things are not invented!" as Rousseau exclaimed in his day. They are from Jesus himself and they are part of his Messianic role: we remember that it is the Messiah who is to give the teamei torah hadashim, the 'new principles for the interpretation of the Torah' and the new motivation. How then might these roots studies be used? The reader will realise that a theological study which focuses on the Bible's christology is by nature such that it spans even the bounds between the different denominations, as witnessed to by the letter I mentioned in the preface from the Archbishop representing the eastern Mesopotamian and Assyrian churches. Secondly, the theologians are to work in ecumenical contexts. For this reason, it may be that this kind of book will also span the fences which divide our Western churches. These roots studies of ours originated from a love and care for God's chosen people. It was therefore most heartwarming when the Israeli Jewish-Christian Hebrew periodical Be-Shuv published a fairly long review by I. Kugler of the significance of the original Hebrew volume "The Messiah in the New Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writing". The reviewer states first that, "this is the first time in our generation that Israel's Hebrew-speaking Jewish-Christians have in their hands a study-book on the Messiah in their own language". Since the Hebrew text is more terse and contains concepts which are more difficult to grasp than those found in this version made for non-Hebrew speakers, I had feared that not everything would be read and understood. I. Kugler, however, says that although the book's thesis touches also upon the interpretation of the Rabbis: "It is nonetheless not a difficult book to read, and it can be easily understood from beginning to end. This method of approach has the advantage that after one reading it will also serve later as a good textbook leading to deeper study."83 The conditions for the eradication of the conflict between the church and the synagogue are better in Israel than in the diaspora, because there the Israelites do not have the same need to defend their national existence. It may even be that Jacob and Esau will soon meet one another at the Jabbok stream. The gospel is easier for the Jew to grasp than for a Gentile: for the Jew it certainly is a stumbling-block, but for the Gentile it is, in the words of Paul, "foolishness". The celebrated leading Swedish Rabbi Marcus Ehrenpreis describes in one of his books a wandering Jew who roams around, going from door to door, group to group, like an outcast. Finally he stops, unable to take another step. Then he sees before him one like the Ancient of Days who asks, "Why have you stopped?" "I just can't go any further," he answers. The Ancient of Days says to him, "It is unfortunate if you give up at this point, because you will lose the spirit of Life; and you will ultimately become like a silent stone."84 The Christian Church faces the same danger if it does not return to
its roots.
|