The Jewish Studies Blog

Scattered throughout the Talmud, the founding document of rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity, can be found quite a few references to Jesus–and they’re not flattering. In this lucid, richly detailed, and accessible book, Peter Schafer examines how the rabbis of the Talmud read, understood, and used the New Testament Jesus narrative to assert, ultimately, Judaism’s […]

Since this commentary is concentrating only on relevant Jewish contextual background issues, we are purposefully avoiding all other insightful comments that most other commentaries address. Suffice it to say that many of the names, including John, come to the New Testament from Greek manuscripts of the Gospel. Sometimes the Greek manuscripts do actually refer to Greek names such as Timothy (Timotheus, which means honored by God) or Andrei (Andreas, which simply means man or manly). But other times, names like Mathew were in fact common Jewish, Hebrew names. These names were Hellenized and Latinized before arriving in our English Bibles. As an example, Mathew (Matthaios/Matthaeus) was Mattiyahu (which in Hebrew means gift of God).

4in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

To the author of the Gospel, the Word of God was both distinct from God and yet at the same time was in some way truly God. This Word of God (Logos/Memra) played an exclusive rule in the creation of the world, as we read in the verses above. Moreover, according to John, the life force that makes any of God’s creation breathe, move, and exist was intricately connected with and depended upon that very Word of God. In this section, the author of the Gospel compares this Word with light shining in the darkness, stating resolutely that the power of darkness was not successful in overcoming it.

It is absolutely true that this Gospel’s original author, in his midrashic[1] prologue to the rest of the book, states that there is an entity referred to as “God,” as well as an entity referred to as the “Word of God.” Both God and his Word, in the Evangelist’s mind are divine and existed eternally. Whether one’s theology allows for such interpretation or not, is in some way irrelevant. This is after all theology of the Gospel of John and this is how the author sees God. Take it or leave it.

The book of Jeremiah was treated with various degrees of attention as various concerns and circumstances were brought to its reading, reflecting various outlooks and presuppositions. One conclusion that I derived from my studies is that biblical research has by no means arrived at its final stage. More commentaries ought to be written, more contemporary issues explored in the light of the book’s message; more data needs to be assessed by the scholarly and pastoral communities of the world. A great danger exists, however, in that in this holy enterprise the academia will be divorced from the church, university from seminary, theoretical from practical. It is important that those two scholarly communities with different emphases would seek the merger for the benefit of God’s Kingdom.

This new edition of David Flusser’s classic study of the historical Jesus, revised and updated by his student and colleague R. Steven Notley, will be welcomed everywhere by students and scholars of early Christianity and Judaism. Reflecting Flusser’s mastery of ancient literary sources and modern archaeological discoveries, The Sage from Galileeoffers a fresh, informed biographical […]

Most of publications dealing with the New Testament collection of Ancient writings come out under the authorship of Christian scholars or those scholars whose versions of faith expression in some way are affiliated with Christianity (i.e. Messianic Jewish movement/s). This publication is a ground-breaking effort of two top Jewish Scholars who edited the work of […]

The chapter that relates the story of Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well in John 4 begins by setting the stage for what will take place later in Samaria and is rooted in what already by this time in the Gospel’s progress has taken place in Judea. Jesus’ rapidly growing popularity resulted in […]

John the Baptist makes a statement strikingly similar to Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus. You will recall that Jesus said to Nicodemus: “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (Jn. 3.16-17) John the Baptist says to his followers: “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (Jn. 3.34-36)
It’s essential to note that both John the Baptist and Jesus (as well as John the Zebedee who likely authored the Gospel) expected the Jewish Nicodemus and the Jewish disciples of John the Baptist to understand and relate to the language of the supremacy of the Son of God. In other words, to be used so openly and freely, it must not have been a new or foreign concept to them as we normally think. After all the Sonship of God concept was the very argument that both Jesus and John the Baptist employed to prove their point. The Samaritan Israelites just like John’s disciples struggled to accept supremacy of Jesus. However, they needed to do so, because Jesus was the Chosen King with legitimate authority from above. He was the Son of God – His royal appointee. To listen to Jesus meant to listen to God himself. To disobey Jesus meant to disobey God himself. Jesus was not optional for John’s disciples, for Israelite Samaritans, or for anyone else who might stumble over these words in years to come – His capable rule of God’s people was unavoidable necessity.