FASCINATING BUT FUNDAMENTALLY AND FATALLY FLAWED
A review of David Klinghoffer’s Why the Jews Rejected Jesus:
by Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.
The Turning Point of Western History (New York: Doubleday, 2005), viii, 247 pp.
(This review was published in the Israeli journal Mishkan, September 2005)
In this slender but wide-ranging volume, David Klinghoffer, a highly literate, Orthodox Jewish journalist, puts forth a bold, pioneering thesis: People should be thankful that the Jews rejected Jesus, otherwise, there would have been no Christianity, in which case the world today would be a far worse place. Simply stated, “The Jewish rejection of Christ made possible the sublime culture of Europe in which Felix Mendelssohn flourished, as well as the sublime politics of America whose blessings we enjoy. … For this, thank the Jews” (220).
And what would have happened if the Jews had, in fact, embraced Jesus as Messiah? “Had the Jews embraced Jesus … in every key respect, the Jesus movement might have remained a Jewish sect” – by which he clearly means an Orthodox Jewish sect, as if later rabbinic halakha was extant in the first century (7). As a result, “Christianity would not have spread wildly across the Roman Empire and later across Europe, as it did. … A ‘Jewish’ Christianity would have stood as much chance of taking hold of huge numbers of people as a church nowadays that asks all members to earn a master’s degree in theology. … Because the Jews rejected Paul, there is such a thing as Christian civilization” (8, 99).
After a brief Introduction (“Thank the Jews,” 1-10), Klinghoffer argues that “Judaism in the Year 27” was predominantly Pharisaical – note that he consistently and anachronistically refers to the Pharisees as “the rabbis” – with a pronounced (and also anachronistic) emphasis on the centrality of the oral law (11-38). The person of Jesus is then introduced in a non-hostile fashion, typical of the tone of the entire volume. (That is to say, where Klinghoffer disagrees, he does so graciously.) Unfortunately, in a discussion that could have easily occupied scores of full-length monographs, covering aspects of Jesus’ life, message, and self-awareness, Klinghoffer, like an investigative reporter, lets us know what is and is not believable about the Gospel accounts, but with no hint of any guiding methodological principles (39-71; see, e.g., 43, “I present neither an ethical nor an apocalyptic but instead a foxy, ambiguous Jesus”). In similar fashion, the reader is left to guess just how the author knows exactly how “any biblically literate Jew” would have responded to Jesus or the claims made about him by his followers, a concept raised repeatedly (see, e.g., 65).
The chapters that follow deal with the death and resurrection of Jesus (72-89, acknowledging some Jewish complicity in Jesus’ death, as per the Talmud and Maimonides); the apostle Paul, presented as not Jewish by birth and ignorant of Hebrew, and as someone who distorted the teachings of Jesus – indeed, he presented a non-Jewish Jesus! – and made the new faith acceptable to the gentile world (90-118); Jewish-“Christian” interaction before Constantine (119-149); medieval Jewish-Christian debates (150-181); the modern debate (182-212); and a concluding chapter on the priesthood of the Jews (213-222) claiming that, “It would seem the Christian church now plays the role of congregation, as the Muslim ummah also does, with the Jews serving in the ministerial position” (219).
How should we respond to this thesis? Since space precludes a fuller analysis, the following critique of his most salient points will have to suffice. But first, the positive:
1. Although the survey is, at times, anachronistic, Klinghoffer does provide a useful, cogent summary of why so many Jews have rejected and continue to reject Jesus as Messiah.
2. He accurately points out Judaism’s love for the commandments of the Torah, contrasting this with his reading of Paul’s aversion to the commandments. This again provides a useful perspective.
3. He paves the way for further dialogue by being irenic in tone as well as transparent, admitting a valid point when he sees one. Indeed, he invites further dialog and disputation.
4. He brings to light the primary Talmudic texts that seem to speak of Jesus (with great disparagement, of course), recognizing that these texts are readily available to “Jew haters” and scholars.
5. He paints a broad historical picture in roughly 200 pages, bringing the reader up to the present day and showing the contemporary relevance of an ancient controversy. His summary of the medieval debates, although naturally biased, makes for good reading.
6. He appreciates Christianity’s contributions to Western society.
The book’s weaknesses, however, outweigh its strengths:
1. His overall analysis of history is superficial, making broad assumptions. For example, he asks whether Islam’s “armies would have confronted a Europe that was a spiritual vacuum, which Muhammad’s teachings would likely have filled” (218). But how do we know that, without Christianity, there even would have been an Islam that arose in the seventh century? And how do we know what would have happened if many more Jews actually accepted the Messiahship of Jesus while recognizing that the Gentiles were not required to come under the full yoke of the Torah? What would have happened if the Church had not lost sight of its Jewish roots?
2. Klinghoffer notes that a more accurate – albeit less felicitous – title of the book might have been, Why the Jews Who Rejected Jesus Did So (90). This is correct. However, as will be seen shortly, the real key to the “turning point of Western history” was the Jewish acceptance of Jesus, since it was only through that Jewish acceptance that the good news of the Messiah made a worldwide impact.
3. Klinghoffer’s presentation of pre-70 CE Judaism in strongly Pharisaic terms is too monolithic, with later rabbinic concepts of “oral Torah” also painted back into that earlier setting. Not only does this minimize the opposition Jesus had from the Sadducees during his lifetime (see Matt 3:7; 16:1, 6, 11-12; 22:23, 34; see further Acts 4:1; 5:17 for later developments), but it overly simplifies the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, a conflict that many scholars understand to be an in-house conflict.1 As for the concept of oral law, while there is no doubt that Jesus differed with some (or many) of the traditions of the Pharisees, there is not a hint in the Gospels – or in most early rabbinic literature – of the concept of a binding, authoritative, oral law passed on from Sinai.2 In truth, there was a conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, but passages such as John 5:1-18, the Sabbath healing of lame man who is then instructed to carry his mat, deal more with Jesus’ exposing how the traditions had blinded the leaders to the spirit of the Torah rather than presenting a complete rejection of all traditions. (See, e.g., 56: “The rabbis took such matters [speaking of the prohibition against carrying on the Sabbath] seriously. Jesus didn’t.”)
4. Klinghoffer fails to grasp the depth of Matthew’s hermeneutic (along with the hermeneutic of other NT authors), noting, “Pointing out the imprecision of proof texts like these, one feels almost unsporting. It’s too easy” (66). To the contrary, as top Matthew scholars have observed, “Matthew was not above scattering items in his Greek text whose deeper meaning could only be appreciated by those with a knowledge of Hebrew. Indeed, it might even be that Matthew found authorial delight in hiding ‘bonus points’ for those willing and able to look a little beneath the gospel’s surface.”3 At times it is clear that Klinghoffer simply failed to get the NT author’s point (see again 66, citing Matt 2:23 and Isa 11:1).
5. In treating Paul, Klinghoffer is greatly influenced by Hyam Maccobby’s The Mythmaker, one of the more marginal works in Pauline scholarship in the last twenty years.4 (Ironically, Maccobby also wrote a volume entitled Jesus the Pharisee, which undermines one of the major premises of Klinghoffer’s study.5 ) First, Klinghoffer rejects the increasing scholarly consensus that sees Paul as thoroughly Jewish in thought, not even interacting with Jewish scholarship about Paul. Cf., e.g., Joseph Klausner: “It would be difficult to find more typically Talmudic expositions of Scripture than those in the Epistles of Paul.”6 More recently, cf. Alan Segal, “Without knowing about first century Judaism, modern readers – even those committed by faith to reading him – are bound to misconstrue Paul’s writing. … Paul is a trained Pharisee who became the apostle to the Gentiles.”7 See also Daniel Boyarin, “Paul has left us an extremely precious document for Jewish studies, the spiritual autobiography of a first-century Jew. … Moreover, if we take Paul at his word – and I see no a priori reason not to – he was a member of the Pharisaic wing of first-century Judaism…”8 How, one must ask, did this ignorant deceiver manage to debate in the synagogues for weeks on end? Second – and this is one of the most fatal flaws to the entire volume – he does not believe that Paul refused to reject the Torah for Jews; the book of Acts goes out of its way to remove this false accusation (see Acts 21:17-26; note also 18:18!). Rather, Paul preached that for all people, salvation came through repentance towards God and faith in Jesus (see Acts 20:21), but God did not require the Gentiles to follow all the Torah’s obligations. And Paul understood his mission to the Gentiles because he understood the priestly calling of the Jews! See Romans 15:16 where he speaks of his “priestly duty” to proclaim the gospel of God to the Gentiles. (For more on this, see the concluding remarks.) Third, as Romans 9-11 makes clear, Paul did not give up on Israel. Rather, he continued to see Israel’s ultimate salvation as the key to world redemption (Rom 11:11-27). Fourth, as other scholars have demonstrated, the teachings of Jesus and Paul are in complete and fundamental harmony, with the latter rightly building on the former.9
6. Klinghoffer delineates the prophetic requirements for the Messiah’s mission in Maimonidean clarity. (In reality, the clear and systematic understanding put forth by Klinghoffer is hardly found in any rabbinic texts prior to Maimonides in the 12th century.) Thus, he claims that the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus, based on the messianic prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others, would have understood that, among other things, all the exiles would have to be regathered and the present temple replaced by a messianic temple (34, 71). Not only does this present an overly simplistic interpretation of first-century Jewish thought,10 it also fails to place those prophecies in their historical context, one in which the first temple had just been destroyed by the Babylonians and many Jews had been exiled. By the first century, many of those exiles had long since returned and the temple had already been rebuilt, giving a context to the messianic expectation that was extant at that time.11 Klinghoffer does note that a contemporary apologetic work proves “it is possible to construe the Hebrew prophets as pointing to Jesus” – albeit, according to Klinghoffer, in a highly strained and unlikely manner (210) – yet at times he fails to grasp the force of the arguments he refutes (see, e.g., 204).12
7. Because Klinghoffer is neither a biblical nor rabbinic scholar – he makes no claims to this at all – the work is marred by highly unlikely interpretations, misreading of sources, and even wrong citations. This undercuts the book’s credibility as a whole. For just a sampling see 94, which claims, quite remarkably, that during Paul’s final visit to Jerusalem (see Acts 21) he was seized and almost murdered by “Certain Jewish believers in Jesus [sic!], apparently taking a different view of Judaism from Paul’s”; 97, where it is claimed that Acts admits that “the Jews regarded Paul as ‘uneducated,’” citing Acts 4:13 (which, of course is the charge against Peter and John, long before Paul was on the scene; for a statement in Acts on Paul’s learning, see Acts 26:24b); 230, n. 19, where E. P. Sanders is cited “For a telling example of how Paul’s Hebrew illiteracy shaped his understanding of the Bible,” whereas in reality Sanders was simply treating Paul’s use of the LXX in Gal 3:10. Given the very serious nature of Klinghoffer’s proposal, more careful, scholarly editing would have allowed for more serious discussion of his ideas.
To Klinghoffer’s credit, his well-received volume has stimulated fresh dialogue and debate, which is always healthy, and the spirit in which he has written certainly causes one to put down his or her defenses. Yet it is only by standing his thesis on its head – thus, Because Jews Accepted Jesus: The Turning Point of Western History – that truth emerges. Once this is understood, especially with regard to Paul’s role, Klinghoffer’s volume actually serves as an apologetic for the opposite of what he was trying to prove. For this, I, as a Jewish follower of Jesus, thank this fellow Jewish author.
1For a convenient summary, see William E. Phipps, The Wisdom and Wit of Rabbi Jesus (Louisville: John Knox/Westminster, 1993), 8-30, where Jesus is presented as a "Prophetic Pharisee," with reference to other scholarly literature.
2Cf. Jacob Neusner, What, Exactly, Did the Rabbinic Sages Mean by "the Oral Torah": An Inductive Answer to the Question of Rabbinic Judaism (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 196; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998).
3W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 279, with reference to R. T. France.
4The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1986); note that Maccobby's views are normally not even treated in comprehensive, multi-faceted reviews of Pauline interpretation and scholarship, such as surveys by Stephen Westerholm, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The "Lutheran" Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004); idem, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith: Paul and His Recent Interpreters (repr., Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 1998).
5Hyam Maccobby, Jesus the Pharisee (London: SCM Press, 2003).
6From Jesus to Paul (Eng. trans., New York: MacMillian,), 453-454.
7Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), xi-xii.
8Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1994), 2.
9See, e.g., David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
10Cf. Jacob Neusner, William S. Green, and Ernest Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1987); James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995); Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint, eds., Eschatology, Messianism and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); see also the important collection of older material in Leo Landmann, ed., Messianism in the Talmudic Era (New York: Ktav, 1979).
11For further discussion of this, see my commentary on Jeremiah, forthcoming in the new edition of the Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Zondervan).
12He is referring to the first three volumes of my four-volume work, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000-2006); I do, of course, appreciate the effort he has taken to interact with my writing (see 203-210), and that in the most gracious, complimentary terms.