The scholar who seeks to trace a theme throughout the OT and NT, and to draw upon Jewish literature outside the Bible in the process, has one definite strength and two potential weaknesses.
The definite strength is that such a study, when done well and properly, will demonstrate the inherent theological and Spirit-created unity from Genesis to Revelation. This is something that Brant Pitre has done exceptionally well in Jesus the Bridegroom. He draws from all over the OT and NT to illustrate, in a rich and meaningful variety of ways, how Christ is the Bridegroom of the church.
Simultaneously, the scholar will face two potential weaknesses. One of these is that, because he is focused upon a single theme, he will be tempted to hammer that thematic square peg into every round hole of Scripture. In other words, if there is even the slightest hint that some biblical text might correlate with this theme, he may seek to read his theme into that text, even if it seems forced or overdone.
There are times when Pitre seems guilty of this as well, especially in his treatment of the crucifixion of Jesus as a wedding. I am thinking specifically of Jesus wearing the crown of thorns (which Pitre connects to the Jewish bridegroom wearing a crown and being “king for the day”) and of the Gospel’s description of his seamless tunic (which the author says is reflective of Jesus’ priesthood). Overall Pitre does a good job of avoiding the temptation to force texts into his thematic mold, but it does happen. This is almost inevitable with this kind of book. The reader shrugs, says, “Hmm, maybe not,” and reads on to cover more convincing material.
The other potential weakness is that, when authors draw upon Jewish literature outside the Bible to buttress their thesis, they may read much later material back into the first century AD context. In my opinion, Pitre is guilty of this repeatedly. It is a major weakness of the book. Well over a hundred times, he uses expressions like “ancient Jewish perspective,” “through ancient Jewish eyes,” “the ancient Jewish idea,” or “ancient Jewish evidence.” Most of the time, however, what he cites as “ancient” postdates the New Testament writings by well over a century, if not more. The Talmud, which he also cites as “ancient,” postdates the NT writings by several more centuries.
In my writings and research, I too draw upon the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrashim, Targums, and other Jewish literature. This is all well and good. But, for the sake of honest scholarship, we must emphasize the fact that, while these writings often claim to represent much older traditions, those traditions ordinarily cannot be verified to be true. Thus, importing Jewish material from two, three, or four centuries after the NT, as evidence of “ancient Jewish tradition” that sheds light on the NT, is not helpful. It is misleading to the uninformed reader.
I did like Jesus the Bridegroom and recommend it. The book is well written and presents an immensely important teaching about who Christ is and who the church is. I would urge the reader, however, to focus on the biblical material and to treat the “ancient Jewish traditions” with circumspection.