Commentary on the New Testament from Talmud and Midrash

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash is considered a standard work of biblical studies. It is an anthology with the aim to "gather all the explanation of the New Testament relevant material from the ancient Jewish literature, to sift and conveniently accessible in a reliable translation." He is the main scientific work of the Country Priest Paul Billerbeck and was entirely developed by him. Since the author was unknown to the academic public, the multi-volume commentary by Hermann Leberecht Strack († 1922) was edited together with Paul Billerbeck. Therefore the work is sometimes cited as Strack / Billerbeck . The correct way of citing is: Bill. , Volume, page number.

Content of the individual volumes

  1. The Gospel According to Matthew (1922)
  2. The Gospel According to Mark, Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles (1924)
  3. The New Testament Letters and the Revelation of St. John (1926)
  4. Excursions on individual passages in the New Testament (2 volumes 1928)
  5. Rabbinical index. Edited by Joachim Jeremias; edited by Kurt Adolph (1955)
  6. Directory of the scribes. Geographical register. Edited by Joachim Jeremias in connection with Kurt Adolph (1961).

methodology

The commentary presents its material in the order of the New Testament, with synoptic parallels commented on when they first appear in the Gospel of Matthew. Billerbeck searched all the rabbinical literature available to him for texts that could be relevant in any way to the New Testament and translated these texts into German. Like contemporary experts, he assumed that there would have been a “normative Judaism”, represented by the Pharisees and rabbis and documented in the Mishnah and Talmud . These text corpora therefore have priority for Billerbeck when creating his source collection; The rules laid down in the Mishnah and Talmud are believed to have shaped everyday life in Jesus' day.

The criteria by which Billerbeck chose what was relevant were not reflected on. Usually it is realia, manners and customs, theological ideas. He collected everything he found. The material is "served" to the reader in the form of a text quote without context; the reader has to do the interpretation himself or he has to entrust himself to Billerbeck's interpretive remarks.

A few digressions have been inserted in Volumes I to III in order to relieve the volume of the fourth volume. These excursions cover Jewish topics that were of interest to Christian Bible readers.

criticism

When the commentary appeared, Paul Billerbeck received recognition from all sides for his encyclopedic work, including from Jewish reviewers. Billerbeck's translations are considered reliable; It goes without saying that he could only use the text editions available at the time (as well as the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls were unknown to him).

The sources were used by Billerbeck as a quarry, their time of origin and largely also the context in which Billerbeck found what he was looking for were ignored. So there is no accurate picture of rabbinical literature through the study of Strack / Billerbeck . Samuel Sandmel noted that Strack / Billerbeck led New Testament experts to trust themselves with a knowledge of rabbinical literature that they did not have.

In this commentary, quantity comes at the expense of quality. The accumulated mass of references was not subjected to a relevance test, but claimed that all relevant material was presented to the reader.

The intention of both editors to make the Jewish world of Jesus , the apostles and the early community accessible to the reader of the New Testament was , in the opinion of well-known critics (such as Jacob Neusner , EP Sanders ), missed because texts that were written centuries after the New Testament describe a different living environment.

For Paul Billerbeck, it was agreed that a New Testament statement that had a parallel in rabbinical literature must be superior to this Jewish counterpart. Every comparison of rabbinical and New Testament texts comes to this predictable result. This tendency emerges particularly in the thematic excursions of the fourth volume; Pharisaic Judaism provides the dark background against which young Christianity can distinguish itself. Nevertheless, according to Berndt Schaller , the comment should not be characterized across the board as anti-Semitic; because in the foreword of the first volume both editors clearly distinguish themselves from the anti-Semitism of their time (Strack had clearly positioned himself in this regard). But the commentary had a problematic history of impact due to the structural anti-Jewish character described; it was a useful tool in the hands of anti-Semitic theologians like Walter Grundmann .

According to the judgment of Bernd Schaller, Strack / Billerbeck has not been replaced as a treasure trove by any comparable work, but it is problematic as a source replacement; the bon mot that Walter Bauer coined in 1929 applies here : this work is "not one of those who can be plundered without putting the thief at risk."

reception

As a reference work, Strack / Billerbeck was and is very widely received. It should be emphasized that Joachim Jeremias was unreservedly positive about this collection of sources.

Text edition (CH Beck, Munich)

  1. The gospel according to Matthew. 10th unchanged edition, Munich 1994. ISBN 978-3-406-02723-9 .
  2. The Gospel according to Mark, Luke and John and the Acts of the Apostles, 10th unchanged edition, Munich 2009. ISBN 978-3-406-02725-3
  3. The letters of the New Testament and the Revelation of Johannis, 9th unaltered edition, Munich 1994. ISBN 978-3-406-02727-7 .
  4. Excursions on individual passages in the New Testament, treatises on New Testament theology and archeology. Two parts. 9th edition, Munich 1979. ISBN 978-3-406-02729-1 .
  5. / 6. Rabbinic Index. Directory of the scribes. Geographical register. Ed .: Joachim Jeremias, Kurt Adolph. 6th edition, Munich 1979. ISBN 978-3-406-02731-4 .

Text output online

Web links

literature

  • Annette M. Böckler : Jewish Commentaries on the New Testament. Background and hermeneutical comparison . In: Freiburger Rundbrief NF 2/2013, pp. 90-106 ( PDF )
  • Samuel Sandmel: Paralleomania . In: Journal of Biblical Literature , Volume 81, No. 1 (March 1962), pp. 1-13. ( PDF )
  • Bernd Schaller: Paul Billerbeck's “Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash”. Ways and astray, achievement and failure of Christian Judaism . In: Hans-Günther Waubke (Ed.): Jewish Studies and New Testament Science: Locations, Limits, Relationships (FRLANT 226). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2008. pp. 61–84.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ The Gospel according to Matthew . In: Hermann L. Strack, Paul Billerbeck (ed.): Commentary on the New Testament from Talmud and Midrash . tape I , S. V .
  2. ↑ Berndt Schaller: Billerbeck's comment . S. 76 .
  3. ↑ Annette Böckler: Jewish Comments . S. 94 .
  4. ↑ Berndt Schaller: Billerbeck's comment . S. 67 .
  5. ↑ Bernd Schaller: Billerbeck's comment . S. 63-64 .
  6. ↑ Samuel Sandmel: Parallelomania . S. 9 .
  7. ↑ a b Samuel Sandmel: Parallelomania . S. 10 .
  8. ↑ Berndt Schaller: Billerbeck's comment . S. 77 (Schaller offers an overview of the critics who consider Billerbeck's comment to be unusable for the reason given; however, he only partially endorses this judgment.).
  9. ↑ Berndt Schaller: Billerbeck's comment . S. 74-75 .
  10. ↑ Berndt Schaller: Billerbeck's comment . S. 75 .
  11. ↑ Berndt Schaller: Billerbeck's comment . S. 84 .
  12. ↑ Martina Janßen: Jeremias, Joachim. In: WiBiLex. Retrieved April 2, 2018 .